WB Study 2016 Alternative and Inclusive Learning - Marked

Public Disclosure Authorized
Report No: AUS14891
Republic of the Philippines

Alternative Learning System Study
Alternative and Inclusive Learning in the Philippines
.
May 10, 2016
.
GED02
EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

Standard Disclaimer:
This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank. The
findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive
Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the
data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work
do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement
or acceptance of such boundaries.
Copyright Statement:
The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission
may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank
encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly.
For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the
Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-
4470, http://www.copyright.com/.
All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The
World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax 202-522-2422, e-mail pubrights@worldbank.org.
Alternative and Inclusive Learning in the Philippines
May 10, 2016

This report was prepared by a World Bank team, under the leadership and guidance of Motoo Konishi,
Country Director, Philippines; Harry Patrinos, Education Practice Manager, East Asia and Pacific; Luis
Benveniste, Education Practice Manager, Global and Knowledge Management; Aleksandra Posarac,
Program Leader, Philippines; and Samer Al-Samarrai, Senior Economist, who led the Programmatic
AAA in Education. The World Bank core team was led by Futoshi Yamauchi (Task Team Leader), Senior
Economist, Development Research Group, and included Takiko Igarashi, Education Specialist; Lynnette
Perez, Former Senior Education Specialist; Nicholas Tenazas, Education Specialist; and Kamanlee
Suleiman, Consultant. The De La Salle University team led data collection for the National Capital
Region-Plus Survey under the supervision of Marites Tiongco, Associate Professor, who also contributed
to the contents of this report. The team included Catharine Adaro, Winona Bolislis, Violy Cordova, and
Fe Gascon, all consultants. The team thanks Suhas Parandekar, Shwetlena Sabarwal, Peter Darvas (all
peer reviewers), Harry Patrinos, Philip Purnell and Tereso Tullao for useful comments and suggestions.
Corinne Bernaldez provided excellent administrative and logistical support from Manila and Anna
Coronado and Van Tores provided administrative support from the World Bank headquarters.
The preparation of this report greatly benefitted from the excellent support provided by the Philippine
government authorities in the Central Office of the Department of Education and, in particular, the
Bureau of Alternative Learning System, through the leadership of Directors Carolina Guerrero, Edel
Carag and Sevilla Panaligan. The Bureau of Alternative Learning System also funded and conducted the
National Monitoring and Evaluation data collection, which was intensively used by the team to formulate
this report. Many useful discussions with staff in the Bureau of Alternative Learning System substantially
contributed to the contents of this report. Special thanks is given to Ms. Melissa Albino, who served as
the main coordinator from the DepEd side and provided excellent technical and logistical support to the
study.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Executive Summary
2 Targets
2.1 Philippine School System
2.2 Estimation of the ALS Target Population Size
2.3 Facilitator Allocation
2.4 Summary
3 Beneficiaries
3.1 Data and Sample
3.2 Characteristics of ALS Beneficiaries
3.3 Who Enrolls in and Completes ALS and Passes the A&E Secondary Test?
3.4 Summary
4 Delivery: Contract Schemes
4.1 Background
4.2 Learner Size and Learning Outcomes
4.3 Teaching Experience
4.4 Determinants of Learning Outcomes
4.5 Relationship Between Performance and Willingness to Choose Performance-Based Payments
4.6 Monitoring Activities
4.6 Summary
5 Post-ALS Labor Market Outcomes
5.1 Labor Market Conditions for Adolescents
5.2 Labor Force Participation: Returns and Opportunity Cost
5.3 NCR Plus: Near Manila Where Returns to Schooling Are Relatively High
5.4 What Increases Earnings? Enrollment, Completion, Passing the A&E Test?
5.5 How Much Does Income Increase after Passing the A&E Test?
5.6 Summary
6 Summary of Findings and Future Agenda
6.1 Summary of Findings
6.2 Future Research Issues
7 Appendix
7.1 Evolution of the Alternative Learning System
7.2 Data for Section 2: Targets
7.3 Performance Measurements
7.4 National Monitoring &Evaluation Data Collection
References
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
A&E Accreditation and Equivalency
AAR adjusted accomplishment rate
ADB Asian Development Bank
ADM alternative delivery mode
ALS Alternative Learning System
AR accomplishment rate
ARMM Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
BALS Bureau of Alternative Learning System
BEIS Basic Education Information System
BLP Basic Literacy Program
BPOSA Balik-Paaralan Para sa Out-of-School Adults
CAR Cordillera Administrative Region
DALSC district ALS coordinator
DepEd Department of Education
EL elementary level
ES elementary school
FLEMMS Functional Literacy, Education and Mass Media Survey
GTAPR gross target age participation rate
HH household
HS high school
ILA Individual Learning Agreement
IM instructional manager
K-12 Kindergarten to Grade 12
LF learning facilitator
LFS Labor Force Survey
LIS Learner Information System
LV literacy volunteer
M&E monitoring and evaluation
MIS Management Information System
MT mobile teacher
NAT National Achievement Test
NCR National Capital Region
NER net enrollment rate
NFE non-formal education
NSO National Statistics Office
OBS observations
OSYA out-of-school youth and adults
PHP Philippine peso
PLFR potential learner-facilitator ratio
POPCEN Population Census
PSA Philippine Statistics Authority
PTR pupil-teacher ratio
RPL recognition of prior learning
SL secondary level
TAPR target age participation rate
TEEP Third Elementary Education Project
TP target population
TPR target age participation rate
TTTR total test taker rate
UIS UNESCO Institute of Statistics
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
USD U.S. dollar
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Philippines has made remarkable progress in improving the quality of basic education in
recent decades. Even so, despite significant improvements in primary and secondary education,
the number of students who drop out of school remains worryingly high. More than five million
youths have failed to complete a basic education (elementary and high school). 1
Alternative Learning System (ALS) is a second-chance, informal education program operated by

the Department of Education (DepEd) for out-of-school youths and adults.2 This report aims to
assess the current implementation of ALS using a variety of sources3, including recent surveys,
and analyzes (a) the target populations, (b) current beneficiaries, (c) delivery modes (with a focus
on learning facilitators’ contracting schemes), and (d) labor market returns to ALS.
Only a small proportion of the target population are enrolled in the ALS program. In 2014,
only 10 percent of potential ALS learners were in the program.4 In fact, two-thirds of the target
population (age 16-26) are currently employed.5 What is needed is an intervention policy to
reduce the opportunity costs for these potential learners through a scholarship or conditional cash
transfer, easing their participation in ALS or in an alternative program such as the Alternative
Delivery Mode (ADM).
The first target group for ALS are students who drop out of high school for financial
reasons.6 Students who leave school for financial reasons are the most likely group to enroll in
ALS, complete the program, and pass the A&E test. For these students, dropping out of school is
seldom related to ability or learning commitment. Students who stop school for
marriage/pregnancy or behavioral reasons, however, are the least likely to enroll and succeed in
ALS.
Performance-based payment is expected to improve performance.7 Revealingly, the study

found no clear difference in work efficiency of learning facilitators who are directly employed by
DepEd (DepEd-delivered facilitators) and those who are contracted under DepEd (DepEd-
procured facilitators). Introducing performance-based payment, particularly to DepEd-procured
facilitators, may create effective work incentives and improve learning outcomes. Currently,
1
See Section 2.2 “Estimation Of The ALS Target Population Size”
2
See Section 7.1 (Appendix) “Evolution Of The Alternative Learning System”
3
The findings reported are based on a variety of data sources of (i) recent national household surveys conducted by
the Philippines Statistics Authority, namely the Functional Literacy, Education, and Mass Media Survey and Labor
Force Survey (See Section 7.1 for its complete details) and (ii) two unique surveys that collected comprehensive
information on the characteristics of the Alternative Learning System. These surveys are: (a) the ALS NCR-Plus
Survey conducted in selected areas in NCR and Region 4A by the World Bank and (b) the ALS M&E National Data
Collection conducted across the Philippines by the Department of Eduation. The details of these surveys are
included in Chapter 3, Chapter 4, and Chapter 5 of the report.
4
See Section 7.3 (Appendix) “Performance Measurements”
5
See Section 2.2.7 “Ages 16-26: Basic Characteristics”
6
See Section 3.3 “Wno Enrolles In And Completes ALS And Passes The A&E Secondary Test?”
7
See Section 4.5 “Relationship Between Performance And Willingness To Choose Performance-Based Payments”
1
DepEd-procured learning facilitators are paid substantially less than DepEd-delivered learning
facilitators, regardless of individual effort and performance. However, DepEd-delivered
facilitators have more teaching experience than procured facilitators, which generally improves
teaching effectiveness and performance. The study found that learning facilitators prefer
performance-based payment if they have performed well.
The current arrangement for monitoring activities within the ALS program can be
improved.8 Monitoring activities performed by different supervisors from national and sub-
national education management tiers are not well coordinated. Similarly, District ALS
Coordinators (DALSC), who monitor other learning facilitators, perform less well than other
facilitators for teaching learners in the field. Their dual role in teaching learners and monitoring
facilitators needs to be reconsidered.
Labor market returns to ALS are significant only when learners successfully pass the
Secondary A&E exam.9 The current pass rate, however, is very low, around 20 percent, which
exacerbates the low enrollment observed in the ALS program since the present low pass rate
means low expected returns in the future.
Small class size (fewer than 40 learners per facilitator) is more efficient.10 The report finds
an inverse relationship between class size and the A&E pass rate, showing that a reduction in
class size (below 40 learners per facilitator) significantly increases the A&E pass rate.
Regardless of whether facilitators are DepEd-delivered or DepEd-procured, reducing the number
of learners to below 40 per facilitator is a key instrument for improving A&E pass rates.
A holistic approach is required for a socially efficient solution for students who do not
complete school and those who are at high risk.11 In particular, a coordinated effort to
harmonize ALS and ADM could present all options to school dropouts and non-completers. In
the current setting, where grades 11 and 12 are newly introduced at high school in 2016, ADM
could be more effective covering new senior high school curricula as the program is directly
offered by (selected) high schools to address the learning needs of the marginalized students,
those most at risk of dropping out as well as those who have stopped schooling. While
redesigning the A&E examination and upgrading the contents of the ALS Secondary program, it
is important to redefine the priority target populations for ALS and ADM based on their
comparative advantages.
An expansion of ALS may distort incentives among students currently in school. Given the
magnitude of the ALS target youth (ranging between five and six million), an expansion of ALS
programs is needed to offer a second chance to those who did not start school or failed to
complete it. The study accepts that an expansion of the program may not be an ideal solution,
since the expansion itself may distort incentives among students currently in school. For
example, those who are currently at high risk of dropping out might view a second chance as a
8
See Section 4.6 “Monitoring Activities”
9
See Section 5.4 “What Increases Earnings? Enrollement, Completion, Passing the A&E Test? ”
10
See Section 4.2 “Learer Size And Learning Outcomes”
11
See Section 6.2 “Future Research Issues”
2
reason to postpone graduating. Indeed, they might see ALS as an easy path to a diploma and,
therefore its expansion would have the unintended consequence of increasing the dropout rate.
However, we believe that students who were deprived of basic education opportunities for any
reason including conflicts and violence deserve a second chance and that ALS is their best hope
for continuing and completing their schooling.
Early intervention guarantees greater returns. Though different programs need to be well
coordinated, the most effective remedies are those that are applied when learners are still in
school. In education, as in medicine, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
3
2 TARGETS12
2.1 PHILIPPINE SCHOOL SYSTEM

The necessity of having a second-chance program to certify educational attainment outside the formal
school system in the Philippines comes from a unique feature of the system itself. The Philippines made
remarkable progress in improving the quality of basic education in the past decades, demonstrated in
various indicators, but at the same time, the system has faced many challenges. One of the nearly chronic
problems observed in the past decades is the high school dropout rate.
The system observes a relatively high proportion of dropouts (or non-completers, interchangeably) at the
secondary stage. It is also noteworthy that prior to the introduction of the K-to-12 Reform (scheduled to
be implemented at full scale in mid-2016), the country’s basic education is only 10 years, in which
elementary (primary and intermediate) and high schools require six and four years, respectively. Thus,
high school dropouts are ages 12–16, normally regarded as young teenagers who still have not acquired
enough knowledge and skills to be competent in the labor market.
Figure 2.1: High School Year 4 Students’ Cohort Survival Rate in 1996–2013 (%)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Male Female Total
Source: BEIS, Department of Education.
Figure 2.1 shows the cohort survival rate of high school year 4 (grade 10) students in recent years. The
figure shows that the magnitude of non-completers at the high school level is high in the Philippines, in
addition to the relatively low enrollment rate at the high school level. Even in recent years, more than 20
percent of new students in high school cannot reach the fourth year. There has been a persistent gap
between female and male students; female students perform consistently better than male students. A
12
This section is drawn upon a policy note: Igarashi, T. and F. Yamauchi, 2015a, The Estimation of Philippine
Alternative Learning System Target Population, Policy Note, World Bank.
4
couple of reasons are thought to be relevant in the Philippine context to explain the high prevalence of
high school dropouts.
First, the 10-year span of the country’s basic education cycle inevitably condenses standard basic
education curriculums within a relatively short period, especially at the four-year high school stage, to
produce a labor force that is technically competent in the industrialized world.
Second, as discussed in the next subsection, labor market earnings are not expected to increase
substantially even with high school completion at age 15 or 16. This fact discourages teenagers,
especially males, from staying in school. High (low) incidence of male (female) dropouts in high school is
consistent with the returns structure in which females’ marginal returns to schooling are higher than
males’ (increasing more steadily with educational attainment).
Third, the quality of the public school education that is available to the majority is generally much lower
than that of private schools, where relatively few families can send their children.
Last but not least important, because of the relatively large income inequality in the country and high
prevalence of poverty, the main reason for dropping out of school is always financial. However, long-
lasting conflicts and violence in certain areas, such as the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao and
many areas in its surrounding regions in Mindanao, have deprived children of the opportunity to study in
school under stable conditions.
A mirror image of the high prevalence of high school dropouts, now and past, is potentially the large
number of people who wish to complete high school, outside the formal school system, to increase their
prospects and be productive in the economy. This is exactly the area of hope that the Alternative Learning
System (ALS) program addresses in the Philippines. As section 2.2 clarifies, the number of beneficiaries
of the program has reached 4.5 million to 5.5 million, in the population ages 15 to 26 years, which is
equivalent to the population size of a small country, such as Denmark, Lao People’s Democratic
Republic, or Singapore.
2.2 ESTIMATION OF THE ALS TARGET POPULATION SIZE
2.2.1 How Can the ALS Target Population Be Defined?

In principle, the Alternative Learning System (ALS) programs are open to anyone who meets the
eligibility condition, which is only the age restriction at entry. The Accreditation and Equivalency (A&E)
Elementary and Secondary Programs accept anyone who is above the school age of formal elementary
and secondary education, respectively, but has not achieved the final years at each school cycle as
mandated by the Philippine Constitution.
ALS implementers conduct a literacy mapping exercise once a year to identify potential learners in each
community who may benefit from the ALS programs. ALS implementers carry out this mapping exercise
in each municipality by visiting individual houses and interviewing individuals to assess their literacy
levels. The results are reported each year. However, since the scale of this activity is rather limited (only a
small number of barangays are covered in each municipality), it is difficult to figure out the actual size of
the ALS target population at the macro level only from the literacy mapping. In addition, it is almost
impossible to trace children and youth once they leave the formal school system under the current
education information system. That is, it is difficult to capture out-of-school youth.
5
In this section, we first define the ALS target population using recent national household survey data and
criteria to define the target population based on the highest educational attainment and literacy level.
First, those who have not completed elementary school, are not currently attending school, but have
already reached age 12 or above are defined as the ALS A&E elementary-level target population.
Similarly, those who have not completed high school, are not currently attending school, but have already
reached age 16 or above are defined as the ALS A&E secondary-level target population. Although in
some cases school age children are admitted to the ALS programs, the analysis enforces the school age
criteria to estimate a lower bound on the target population. Second, using literacy skills-based criterion,
we define those who lack not only basic literacy, such as reading and writing, but also functional literacy
skills (including computation and comprehension) as the target population.13
Another important condition we impose is an upper age limit. Using wage statistics from the Labor Force
Survey, we calculated discounted sums of the benefits and costs of completing high school by attending
the ALS Secondary Program (Figure 2.2). The cost is assumed to be foregone income (wages) for high
school non-completers. The net benefit is the wage gap between high school completers and non-
completers at different ages. Figure 3.1 identifies ages 26–27 years as the threshold above which people
do not see dynamic gains from high school completion, as the sum of discounted future benefits is lower
than the current opportunity cost. From this calculation, we conclude that the target population should be
defined as below age 26 (inclusive). Surprisingly, the current implementation does not set such a
threshold age when approaching potential beneficiaries, probably because the mandate of ALS, among
many, is to develop life skills among those who were deprived of educational opportunities regardless of
their age, but strategic targeting based on calculations of benefits and costs on the user side enriches the
discussion on the budget allocation.
Figure 2.2: Estimated Upper Age Limit for the ALS Target Population
4,500
4,000
3,500
Philippine Pesos (PHP)
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
-
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Average earning of HS incompleters (per month) Age
Discounted sum of benefits for A&E secondary certified (per month)
Source: Labor Force Survey 2011.
13
In this area, there are some delicate discrepancies between the Bureau of Alternative Learning System and the
National Statistics Office definitions on basic and functional literacy.
6
Note: Future gains are the average wage gaps, calculated at different ages, between high school non-completers and
completers. Ages in the five-year intervals shown in the graph are used with the annual discount factor of 0.96. The
opportunity cost is the average wage for high school non-completers at different ages. A&E = Accreditation and
Equivalency; PHP = Philippine peso. We assume that the A&E Secondary pass rate is 20 percent.
2.2.2 What Data Can We Use to Estimate the ALS Target Population?
In estimating the size of the ALS potential learner population in the Philippines, we use Functional
Literacy, Education, and Mass Media Survey (FLEMMS) data.14 FLEMMS is a national survey that
collects information not only on the latest educational status, mass media exposure, employment, and
socioeconomic conditions of Filipinos, but also provides a basic assessment in five levels of the literacy
of individuals aged 10 to 64 years.15 The survey is conducted by the Philippines Statistics Authority, in
collaboration with the Department of Education (DepEd) and other government agencies every five years.
FLEMMS 2008 and 2013 are used in the analysis in this study.16
2.2.3 Estimation Using Education Levels

First, we estimate the size of the ALS target population by educational attainment level. Figure 2.3
summarizes the sequential flows that define the target population at each school cycle.
In the initial step, we set lower age limits to omit people who have not reached the standard completion
ages for elementary and high school in the Philippines. These lower age limits do not reflect the recent
school reform to expand the years of schooling of basic education, known as the K to 12 Program.17
We then focus on those who have never attended school or completed any grade in the first stage. It is
fairly safe to assume that this group of the population is likely to lack even basic cognitive skills. They are
thus classified as the potential target group of the Basic Literacy Program (BLP), the most basic ALS
program.
In the second stage, we group those who have ever attended school based on their attainment level and
current schooling status. Those who have stopped or dropped out before completion of elementary and
high school and are currently out of school are classified as the ALS target population, specifically those
for ALS A&E for the Elementary Level or Secondary Level program. In addition, those who have
completed elementary school but discontinued high school are also classified as the ALS A&E secondary-
level target population.
In the final step, we define a “group at high risk” among those who are currently enrolled. This high-risk
group includes those who are currently in the school system but are already older than the standard
completion age at each school cycle by two years or more. Whether or not the high-risk group is included
in the ALS target population is a policy option. Conceptually, the magnitude of such a high-risk group,
either by repeating grades, temporarily dropping out, or starting schooling late, points to the inefficiency
of the education system.
14
The original data sets used in the analysis were purchased from the Philippines Statistics Authority
(https://psa.gov.ph/content/functional-literacy-education-and-mass-media-survey-flemms).
15
See Ericta and Collado (2010).
16
PSA, “FLEMMS 2008 Data Description,” https://census.gov.ph/nsoda/index.php/catalog/85/study-
description#page=sampling&tab=study-desc.
17
The target cohort of this study was not affected by the K-12 program. For information on the K-12 program, see
http://www.deped.gov.ph/k-to-12.
7
Figure 2.3: Approach to Estimate the ALS Target Population Using Education Levels
Table 2.1 summarizes the results for the ALS target population estimation based on educational
attainment level using the 2008 and 2013 FLEMMS data. FLEMMS 2013 does not cover Region 8
because of the impact of Typhoon Yolanda. This exclusion affects the estimation using the 2013 data,
resulting in an underestimation of the target population in 2013 (see the appendix).
By restricting the upper limit to age 26 years (inclusive), the ALS target population was about 5.5 million
in 2008 and 4.8 million in 2013. On the surface, the proportion of the population age 26 years or younger
in the total population declined from 20 to 17 percent over five years, but this could be largely explained
by the exclusion of Region 8 in 2013.
Those who are already over age 26 do not find the ALS Secondary Program as an attractive investment,
based on the comparison of future benefits from labor market earnings and the current cost of attending
the ALS program. For reference, table 3.1 also shows “potential target populations” (by using the same
criteria) above age 26. The table implies that the target population older than age 26 increased in the
country, once the exclusion of Region 8 is taken into account.
8
Table 2.1: Estimated ALS Target Population Estimated by Education Attainment Level, 2008 and
2013
2008 2013
Highest education
ALS Program Ages 12–
level attained
26 Ages 27–64 Ages 12–26 Ages 27–64
BLP No grade completed 314,492 1,048,625 211,258 790,543
A&E elementary level ES non-completers 1,753,475 4,833,763 1,332,342 4,460,267
ES completers 1,232,590 5,724,582 1,095,671 5,181,197
A&E secondary level
HS non-completers 2,221,933 4,373,554 2,136,402 4,771,389
Total ALS TP 5,522,488 15,980,523 4,775,673 15,203,396
Source: 2008 FLEMMS and 2013 FLEMMS.
Note: A&E = Accreditation and Equivalency; ALS = Alternative Learning System; BLP = Basic Literacy
Program; ES = elementary school; HS = high school; TP = target population.
The overall ALS target population younger than age 26 decreased by 13 percent between 2008 and
2013 (figure 3.3). The reduction was particularly large in the BLP target population (33 percent) and the
A&E Elementary Program (24 percent), both perhaps related to improved efficiency in primary
education. However, the reduction was relatively small in the A&E Secondary Program target
population, which still faces challenges such as the low progression from elementary school and the
high dropout rate in high schools.
The existence of students at high risk who may continuously fuel the target population also needs
urgent attention. In our estimation, the high-risk group at the elementary level was around 0.84 million
in 2008 and 0.73 million in 2013. The high-risk population has decreased but at a slower pace than the
other categories (Figure 2.4).
Figure 2.4: ALS Target Population Estimated by Education Level (Ages 12–26 Years Only), 2008
and 2013
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000 2008
2,000,000 2013
1,000,000
0
BLP A&E Elementary A&E Secondary Total ALS TP Students at high
level level risk

Note: A&E = Accreditation and Equivalency; ALS = Alternative Learning System; BLP = Basic Literacy Program;
TP = target population.
2.2.4 Estimation Using Literacy Levels

Second, we use literacy skill levels to estimate the ALS target population. The FLEMMS data provide
information on individual literacy skills, differentiated by five levels. Each individual between ages 10
9
and 64 in the sample households received a direct assessment by reading and writing a short passage and
solving basic mathematics problems, and was scored by the enumerators. The scores are translated into
five levels to indicate literacy skills as follows:
Level 0: Cannot read and write
Level 1: Can only read and write
Level 2: Can read, write, and compute
Level 3: Can read, write, compute, and comprehend
Level 4: Graduated from high school or completed a higher level of education.
The notion of “basic and/or functional literacy” is still evolving globally, and there has been no clear
consensus about how literacy skills can be measured quantitatively. There are gaps between BALS and
the National Statistics Office (NSO) in defining basic (or simple) and functional literacy skills using the
information collected in FLEMMS. NSO defines basic and functional literacy skills as follows:
Basic or simple literacy is the ability to read and write, and understand a simple message in any
language or dialect. The basic literacy status of an individual can be determined based on the
respondent’s answer to the question “Can ___ read and write a simple message in any language or
dialect?”
Functional literacy is a significantly higher level of literacy, which includes not only reading and
writing skills, but also numeracy skills. The skills must be sufficiently advanced to enable the
individual to participate fully and efficiently in activities commonly occurring in his/her life situation
that require a reasonable capability of communicating by written language.
The Bureau of Alternative Learning System (BALS) of DepEd defines both literacy skills more
comprehensively:
Basic literacy is an educational objective to enable a person to attain basic skills in reading, writing,
speaking and listening, and numeracy.
Functional literacy (conceptual definition) is a range of skills and competencies—cognitive,
affective, and behavioral—which enable individuals to live and work as human persons, develop their
potential, make critical and informed decisions, and function effectively in society within the context
of their environment and that of the wider community (local, regional, national, and global) to
improve the quality of their life and that of society.
Functional literacy (operational definition) is a set of skills with which a person must be able to
communicate effectively; solve problems scientifically, creatively and think critically; use resources
sustainably and be productive; develop oneself and a sense of community; and expand one’s world
view.
The NSO definition is narrower than the BALS definition as to the way to handle those who lack
functional literacy, which implies that the NSO definition may lead to potential underestimation of the
target population. Using the FLEMMS literacy scales, levels 0 and 1 fall into the ALS target population
under the NSO definition, but a higher level can also be included under the BALS/DepEd definition. In
this study, we adopt a broader definition by using the BALS/DepEd definition to estimate the ALS target
population size.
10
Figure 2.5 shows a flow chart that defines the target population by literacy skills. In addition to literacy
skills, we also used lower and upper age limits and current schooling status. Those who are younger than
the standard school starting age for elementary education are excluded from the estimated ALS target
population. Similarly, those who are currently attending school are excluded.
Figure 2.5: Approach for Estimating the ALS Target Population Based on Literacy Skill Levels
Table 2.2 summarizes our estimation results. Despite possible estimation errors caused by the FLEMMS
indicators not fully corresponding to the BALS/DepEd literacy definitions and the resulting
underestimation, we reach about 5.8 million in 2008 and about 4.9 million in 2013 (by using the same age
threshold adopted in the educational attainment–based estimation), constituting 21 and 18 percent of the
population younger than age 26, respectively. In essence, age limits are not required to do illiteracy-based
estimations by definition, but the estimation reported in the table uses age 26 as the upper bound for
comparison purposes.18 Interestingly, the literacy-based estimate is quite similar to the estimate based on
education attainment, and it also decreased between 2008 and 2013 (Figure 2.6). Again, it is important to
note that the 2013 data do not include Region 8, which might have substantially reduced the estimated
population size for that year.
Table 2.2: Estimated ALS Target Population Using Literacy Skill Levels, 2008 and 2013
2008 2013
FLEMMS literacy indicator Literacy Ages 12– Ages 12– Ages 27–
26 Ages 27–64 26 64
Cannot read and write (Lv0) Basic illiterates 940,031 2,859,095 643,324 2,285,283
Can read and write (Lv1) 563,356 1,492,678 329,479 1,077,331
Can read, write and compute (Lv2) Functional 2,013,724 5,241,909 1,678,878 5,338,898
Can read, write, compute and illiterates
comprehend (Lv3) 2,328,327 5,682,405 2,273,682 6,035,078
Total ALS TP 5,845,438 15,276,087 4,925,363 14,736,589

Note: ALS = Alternative Learning System; FLEMMS = Functional Literacy, Education, and Mass Media Survey;
18
It is difficult to identify a similar age threshold above which future benefits are lower than current costs to acquire
functional literacy.
11
Figure 2.6: ALS Target Population Estimated by Literacy Skill Level (Ages 12–26 Years Only)
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000 2008
2,000,000
1,000,000 2013
-
Cannot Read and Can read and write Can read, write and Can read, write, Total ALS TP
write (Lv. 0) (Lv. 1) compute (Lv. 2) compute and
comprehend (LV.3)

Note: ALS = Alternative Learning System; FLEMMS = Functional Literacy, Education, and Mass Media Survey;
2.2.5 Regional Allocation

Table 2.3 shows the potential beneficiaries in the 16 regions in the Philippines. About 25 percent of total
potential learners are concentrated in Regions III and IV-A.
Table 2.3: ALS Target Population by Age Group and Region (2008)
Region Age 5-15 Age 16-26 Age 27 and above

2008 2008 2008
I - Ilocos 55,703 2% 191,249 4% 911,297 5%
II - Cagayan Valley 75,438 3% 203,363 4% 791,923 4%
III - Central Luzon 197,576 9% 431,984 9% 1,883,596 10%
IVA - CALABARZON 139,194 6% 355,795 7% 1,326,675 7%
V - Bicol 202,156 9% 412,286 8% 1,540,612 8%
VI - Western Visayas 194,985 9% 396,639 8% 1,630,144 9%
VII - Central Visayas 131,897 6% 317,840 6% 1,118,170 6%
VIII - Eastern Visayas 132,177 6% 248,296 5% 765,186 4%
IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 112,554 5% 305,232 6% 888,887 5%
X - Northern Mindanao 140,732 6% 348,555 7% 969,129 5%
XI - Davao 135,853 6% 272,114 5% 860,416 5%
XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 126,489 6% 376,802 8% 1,307,984 7%

1% 1% 2%
12
National Capital Region 25,915 68,003 287,958
Cordillera Administrative Region 243,516 11% 300,572 6% 950,534 5%
ARMM 61,986 3% 159,155 3% 505,398 3%
XIII - Caraga 190,407 8% 456,437 9% 2,006,094 11%
IVB - MIMAROPA 97,584 4% 174,898 3% 659,600 4%
Total 2,264,161 100% 5,019,220 100% 18,403,602 100%
2.2.6 Ages 16–26: Gender Distribution by Region

Table 2.4 shows the distribution of the age 16 to 26 target population by region. Male and female
potential learners are distributed in a similar manner, but the number of female potential beneficiaries is
approximately 34 percent of the male counterpart.
Table 2.4: TP Ages 16–26 by Gender and Region (2008)
Region Male Female Total
I - Ilocos 128,689 4% 62,560 3% 191,249
II - Cagayan Valley 139,550 4% 63,813 3% 203,363
III - Central Luzon 281,439 9% 150,545 8% 431,984
IVA - CALABARZON 293,378 9% 163,060 9% 456,438
V - Bicol 233,083 7% 122,712 7% 355,795
VI - Western Visayas 288,632 9% 123,654 7% 412,286
VII - Central Visayas 248,429 8% 148,210 8% 396,639
VIII - Eastern Visayas 205,752 6% 112,088 6% 317,840
IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 158,371 5% 89,926 5% 248,296
X - Northern Mindanao 190,132 6% 115,100 6% 305,232
XI - Davao 213,984 7% 134,571 7% 348,555
XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 155,324 5% 116,790 6% 272,114
National Capital Region 207,719 7% 169,084 9% 376,802
Cordillera Administrative Region 43,817 1% 24,185 1% 68,003
ARMM 162,157 5% 138,415 8% 300,572
XIII - Caraga 110,374 3% 48,781 3% 159,155
IVB - MIMAROPA 113,904 4% 60,994 3% 174,898
13
Total 3,174,733 100% 1,844,488 100% 5,019,220
2.2.7 Ages 16–26: Basic Characteristics

Tables 2.5 to 2.9 provide detailed characteristics of the target population, with the non-target group as
reference, by gender, marital status, family status, employment, and basic literacy skills.
Table 2.5: Gender (2008)
Male Female Total

No-target 6,203,422 46% 7,358,776 54% 13,562,198 100%
Target 3,174,733 63% 1,844,488 37% 5,019,220 100%
Table 2.6: Marital Status (2008)
Single Married Total

No-target 11,264,871 83% 2,297,327 17% 13,562,198 100%
Target 3,651,499 73% 1,367,722 27% 5,019,220 100%
Table 2.7: Having a Child or Not (2008)
No child With child(ren) Total

No-target 12,970,081 96% 592,117 4% 13,562,198 100%
Target 4,415,146 88% 604,074 12% 5,019,220 100%
Table 2.8: Employment Status (2008)
Not employed Employed Total

No-target 8,209,644 61% 5,352,555 39% 13,562,198 100%
Target 1,631,952 33% 3,387,268 67% 5,019,220 100%
Table 2.9: Basic Literacy Skills (2008)
Not able to read/write Able to read/write Total
No-target 3,697 0% 13,558,501 100% 13,562,198 100%
Target 416,462 8% 4,602,759 92% 5,019,220 100%
The tables show that the majority of the ALS target populations are male, single, childless, and likely to
be currently employed. These observations point to the importance of opportunity costs in decision
making about enrolling in the ALS Secondary Program. Singlehood and childless status mean that the
demographic costs of enrolling in the program are relatively small. However, the fact that the majority are
currently employed indicates that they would have to give up their current income to enroll in the
14
program. In other words, many of the youth school non-completers are facing a situation in which they
have to pay economic and/or sociological opportunity costs related to their current works to finish their
schooling if they decide to enroll in the ALS program. How to bring those who have relatively high
opportunity costs into the program is a real challenge.
2.2.8 Out-of-School Ages 6–15: Distributions by Gender and Region

Table 2.10 shows the distribution of out-of-school children ages 6–15 by region and gender. In this group,
the gender distribution by region looks different from that of the primary target group. A large female
population is concentrated in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). Again, the
absolute number of female potential learners is less than half that of male learners.
Table 2.10: Out-of-School Children and Youth Age 6–15 by Gender and Region (2008)
Region Male Female Total
I - Ilocos 38,978 3% 16,725 2% 55,703
II - Cagayan Valley 45,371 3% 30,068 3% 75,438
III - Central Luzon 120,616 9% 76,960 9% 197,576
IVA - CALABARZON 104,151 8% 86,256 10% 190,407
V - Bicol 86,253 6% 52,942 6% 139,194
VI - Western Visayas 136,840 10% 65,316 7% 202,156
VII - Central Visayas 126,569 9% 68,416 8% 194,985
VIII - Eastern Visayas 83,352 6% 48,545 5% 131,897
IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 78,587 6% 53,590 6% 132,177
X - Northern Mindanao 64,301 5% 48,252 5% 112,554
XI - Davao 85,831 6% 54,901 6% 140,732
XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 82,779 6% 53,074 6% 135,853
National Capital Region 76,773 6% 49,717 6% 126,489
Cordillera Administrative Region 14,337 1% 11,578 1% 25,915
ARMM 128,201 9% 115,315 13% 243,516
XIII - Caraga 41,094 3% 20,893 2% 61,986
IVB - MIMAROPA 65,255 5% 32,330 4% 97,584
Total 1,379,284 100% 884,877 100% 2,264,162
2.2.9 Discussion
Carefully estimating the actual population size of ALS potential learners following two approaches yields
slightly different figures than the conventional wisdom, clearly indicating that the target population is
15
relatively large. The size of the target population has been decreasing slowly over time (partly because of
the exclusion of Region 8 in 2013). However, the size of the target population is around 5 million to 6
million, which is equivalent to the population size of a small country, such as Denmark, the Lao People’s
Democratic Republic, or Singapore. This population needs urgent policy attention (5.5 million (2008) to
4.8 million (2013) based on educational attainment and 5.8 million (2008) to 4.9 million (2013) based on
literacy skills). The existence of high-risk groups that may continuously enter the target population (about
0.7 million to 0.8 million) also needs policy attention.
Given the magnitude of the ALS target population, an expansion of ALS programs seems important to
offer a second chance to those who did not have a chance to enter school or could not complete their
schooling. However, several delicate issues need careful consideration. First, the expansion of ALS may
distort incentives among students currently in school. For example, those who are currently in high-risk
groups can have a second option prematurely, losing their motivation to graduate. Second, a coordinated
effort to harmonize with the alternative delivery mode (ADM) implemented by formal schools is
important, so as not to distort options for school dropouts and non-completers.
We also found that many youth school non-completers are facing the situation where they have to pay
economic and/or sociological opportunity costs to finish their schooling if they decide to enroll in the
ALS program. How to bring those who have relatively high opportunity costs into the program is a real
challenge.
16
2.3 FACILITATOR ALLOCATION
2.3.1 Distribution of ALS Teachers Relative to Potential Learners
We present the relationship between the actual numbers of ALS learning facilitators (LFs) and potential
learners by division.19 Potential ALS learners younger than age 26 are aggregated at the division level
using the 2013 FLEMMS data. In Figure 2.7, the slope represents the ALS potential learners-to LFs ratio
(PLFR) at the division level. Overall, there is a positive correlation between the numbers of LFs and
potential learners, although the slope differs across divisions.
Figure 2.7: ALS LFs and TP Younger at Age 26 or Below (Division Level)
150
Iloilo Cebu
BoholCagayan
Isabela
Quezon
100
North Cotabato
Bukidnon
Bulacan
Davao City
Cavite
50
0
0 50000 100000 150000

ALS potential learner population (under age 26)
lf_all Fitted values
19
In our analysis, we use basic classifications provided by DepEd as follows. Note that partner-funded ALS
facilitators are omitted because of the lack of information.
• DepEd-delivered LFs include district ALS coordinators and mobile teachers, who are directly appointed by
DepEd and have permanent positions.
• DepEd-procured LFs include instructional managers and literacy, who are hired at the decentralized level
using financial resources from DepEd for ALS and short-term positions.
17
Source: 2013 FLEMMS, 2012 BALS.
Note: ALS = Alternative Learning System; BALS = Bureau of Alternative Learning System; FLEMMS =
Functional Literacy, Education, and Mass Media Survey; LFs = Learning Facilitators; TP = target population.
Next we compare the PLFR with the number of potential learners at the province level to present
graphically the allocation of ALS facilitators (supply) relative to the demand side (Figure 2.8). Provinces
are ordered by the target population size. The slope across provinces is relatively flatter for the PLFR than
for the target population size, which indicates that more facilitators are allocated to provinces that have a
large number of potential learners. An effort is made to equalize the burden on facilitators across
provinces. However, the average PLFR remains very high, at more than 800 potential learners younger
than age 26 to one facilitator in our estimation.
18
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
SIQUIJOR
APAYAO
IFUGAO
COTABATO CITY (N
CITY OF ISABELA
AKLAN
GUIMARAS
MARINDUQUE
QUIRINO
NUEVA VIZCAYA
CAMIGUIN
AURORA
ABRA
MOUNTAIN PROVINC
KALINGA
CATANDUANES
BATAAN
ILOCOS SUR
MISAMIS OCCIDENT
TAWI-TAWI
ROMBLON
BASILAN
ZAMBOANGA SIBUGA
ILOCOS NORTE
ZAMBALES
ANTIQUE
SURIGAO DEL NORT
BOHOL
SARANGANI
COMPOSTELA VALLE
BENGUET
DAVAO ORIENTAL
SURIGAO DEL SUR
CAMARINES NORTE
AGUSAN DEL NORTE
ORIENTAL MINDORO
SORSOGON
LA UNION
CAPIZ
CAGAYAN
AGUSAN DEL SUR
ALS TP below age 26 NCR CITY OF MANI
PALAWAN
ALBAY
LANAO DEL SUR
LANAO DEL NORTE
DAVAO DEL NORTE
SOUTH COTABATO
PLFR
RIZAL
OCCIDENTAL MINDO
TARLAC
MASBATE
NEGROS ORIENTAL
MISAMIS ORIENTAL
ISABELA
SULTAN KUDARAT
BATANGAS
CAMARINES SUR
Figure 2.8: Potential Learner Facilitator Ratio and ALS Potential Learners (Younger Than Age 26), by Province
NCR FOURTH DISTR

PAMPANGA
MAGUINDANAO
SULU
ZAMBOANGA DEL NO
NCR THIRD DISTRI
ZAMBOANGA DEL SU
PANGASINAN
ILOILO
BUKIDNON
NCR SECOND DISTR
NUEVA ECIJA
QUEZON
LAGUNA
COTABATO (NORTH
BULACAN
NEGROS OCCIDENTA
DAVAO DEL SUR
CAVITE
CEBU
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
19
Next we compare pupil-teacher ratios between the ALS non-formal education and the formal school
system. Figure 2.9 shows the relationship between the PLFR for ALS and the pupil-teacher ratio (PTR) in
formal high schools, where each dot represents a division. There is a positive correlation, implying that in
both indicators, resource rich and poor divisions show similar conditions. That is, in resource rich
divisions, ALS and formal high schools are in good hands, but both are under poor conditions in resource
poor divisions. In other words, there are no clear preferences for ALS or formal education at the division
level under the given budget constraint.
Figure 2.9: Scatterplots of PLFR and PTR with a Fitted Line (by Division)
4000
Calamba City
Sulu II
3000
Cavite
2000
Bogo City
1000
Lanao del Sur - IB

0
0 50 100 150
High-school Pupil Teacher Ratio
Ratio of ALS TP (under age 26) to LFs Fitted values
Source: 2013 FLEMMS, 2012 BALS.

Note: ALS = Alternative Learning System; BALS = Bureau of Alternative Learning System; FLEMMS =
Functional Literacy, Education, and Mass Media Survey; LFs = learning facilitators; PLFR = potential learner-
facilitator ratio; PTR = pupil-teacher ratio; TP = target population.
2.4 SUMMARY
It is important but challenging to estimate correctly the actual size of the ALS potential learner population
and its trend over time in the country. Without knowing the target populations, it is difficult to improve
targeting. The size of the potential learning population, that is, the beneficiaries of the ALS programs,
also has a direct implication on the optimal budget (resource) allocations to support the ALS operations.
20
In this section, we quantified the size of the target population (interchangeably, potential learners) in 2008
and 2013 and linked it to the actual allocation (assignments) of ALS facilitators over provinces or
education divisions. Our analysis shows a relatively large population that can be targeted by the ALS
programs. That is, currently, around 5 million to 6 million people deserve the ALS interventions, although
we also observe a decreasing trend of the target population size over time.
Many of the youth school non-completers have relatively high economic and/or sociological opportunity
costs of enrolling in the ALS program. In other words, unless a policy intervention is designed to reduce
their opportunity costs, we can only expect a small number to enroll voluntarily in the program. How to
bring those who have relatively high opportunity costs into the program is a real policy challenge.
A coordinated effort to harmonize with the ADM implemented by formal schools is important, so that
options for school dropouts and non-completers will not be distorted.
21
3 BENEFICIARIES
In the previous section, we estimated the population size of the ALS potential beneficiaries. Though the
target population reaches more than 5 million below age 27, the ALS enrollment has remained low.
Specifically, this section aims to answer the following questions:
- What are the characteristics of people who have been enrolled in ALS? What are the common
characteristics of non-enrollees?
- Is there any significant difference in characteristics between ALS enrollers, non-enrollers,
completers, and A&E test passers?
- Any hint to target groups who are likely to enroll and succeed? Any group who needs a policy
intervention to enroll?
First, we describe the data and sample used in analysis. Second, we provide descriptive statistics about
ALS enrollees compared with non-enrollees by describing their basic characteristics, formal education
experience, ALS non-formal education experience, and incomes after completing ALS. Finally, we use
Probit model to analyze the conditions and characteristics that affect enrollment, completion and A&E
pass.
3.1 DATA AND SAMPLE

We utilize the learner and non-learner data collected in the ALS National Monitoring and Evaluation
activity conducted by the Department of Education (DepEd) of the Philippines in 2014 in collaboration
with the World Bank’s education team. The learner/non-learner data include 1,369 individuals who are
ALS former learners and non-learners originally listed in the community literacy mapping that identifies
potential beneficiaries. The sample consists of 67 percent enrollees and 33 percent non-enrollees in
regions except the Autonomous Region Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) region.
3.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF ALS BENEFICIARIES

3.2.1 Basic Characteristics of Former ALS Enrollees
We first describe basic characteristics, such as age, gender, and migration history of former ALS learners
compared with non-learners.
We find that the ALS learners are significantly concentrated in the 20s to early 30s. The average age of
the ALS learners is about 28 years, and that of the non-learners is about 41 years. The age distribution
shows a clear contrast between enrollers and non-enrollees (Figure 3.1). By adding other groups, such as
the A&E test passers and non-passers, the concentration of the young cohort becomes more significant
among the passers, while non-learners and those who failed the A&E test in turn spread out evenly,
similar to the ALS non-learners.
Figure 3.1: Age Distribution by Enrollees, Non-Enrollees, Passers, and Non-Passers
22
Kernel density estimate
.08
.06
Density
.04
.02
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Age
All Enrolled in ALS Not enrolled in ALS

Passed A&E test Failed A&E test
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 3.5295
Note: A&E = Accreditation and Equivalency; ALS = Alternative Learning System.
Figure 3.2 shows the gender composition of the three groups: (a) ALS non-learners and learners; (b) ALS
completers and non-completers; and (c) those who passed and those who failed the A&E test. The overall
main sample (and in the recovered sample) is 54 percent males and 46 percent females. There is no
significant difference in gender composition across these groups, except for the A&E test passers, among
which females clearly surpass males in share.
Figure 3.2: Gender Distribution across Learners, Non-Learners, Completers, Non-Completers,

Passers and Non-Passers (%)
100%
90%
80% 45 45 45
47 47 53
70%
60%
50% Female
40% Male
30% 55 55 55
53 53 47
20%
10%
0%
Non-learners Learners Completed Not completed Passed Failed
Overall the ALS learners tend to stay in the same province where they were born, compared with non-
learners, but the magnitude of migration differs substantially across regions. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 compare
the place of birth with the place where they were enumerated as potential learners in the community
literacy mapping. Those who moved from their original province of birth to the current province are about
slightly over 20 percent among the former learners and close to 30 percent among the non-learners.
23
Figure 3.3: ALS Learners Who Have Moved from Their Original Province, by Region (%)
ALS learners
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
CAR CARAGA NCR Region I Region II Region Region Region Region Region V Region Region Region Region X Region Region
III IV-A IV-B IX VI VII VIII XI XII
Same province Moved to a diffeent province
Figure 3.4: Non-Learners Who Have Moved from Their Original Province, by Region (%)
Non-learners
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
CAR CARAGA NCR Region I Region II Region Region Region Region Region V Region Region Region Region X Region Region
III IV-A IV-B IX VI VII VIII XI XII
Same province Moved to a diffeent province
3.2.2 Formal Education Experience of ALS Enrollees

Figure 3.5 shows patterns of formal schooling history for ALS learners and non-learners. The figure was
generated by computing the share of attendees and graduates at each school stage. ALS learners clearly
show higher performance compared with non-learners throughout.
24
Figure 3.5: Schooling History of ALS Learners and Non-Learners at Each School Cycle (%)
100.0 98.6 97.8
90.0 84.8
80.0
80.0
% of learners/non-learners
70.0 67.6
59.7
60.0
50.0 Non learners

40.0 36.7 ALS learnres
30.0
20.0 13.4
9.5
10.0 4.7
0.0
Kindergarten: Elementary: Elementary: High school: High school:
attended attended graduated attended graduated
Difference in education history starts in preschool stage. More than 35 percent of ALS learners attended
kindergarten, while less than 15 percent of non-learners had access to preschool. At the entry of
elementary school, there is no significant difference between the two groups, but the gap starts to emerge
at the graduation of elementary school and becomes larger at the entry of high school. About 65 percent
of those who did not finish elementary school reported that they could not afford the expenses or had
financial problems in their family as the primary reason for incompletion.
Although the majority of ALS potential beneficiaries entered high school, they left high school before
graduation. Completion of high school has remained the most significant challenge. Those non-
completers who reported financial difficulty as the main reason for not completing high school reach
about 30 percent. The second reason reported for not completing high school was the influence of others,
including interruption, bad influence by peers, and romantic relationship. This group is about 15 percent
of the total. About 5 percent reported marriage and/or pregnancy as the reason for leaving high school.
3.2.3 ALS Non-Formal Education Experience of Enrollees

Enrollees constitute 67 percent of the overall sample, and this subsection focuses on characteristics of
actual enrollees only. The enrollees are further grouped into those who were enrolled in the ALS
Secondary Program (75 percent), ALS Elementary Program (13 percent), and Basic Literacy Program (12
percent).
3.2.3.1 Entry into the ALS Program

Before discussing their entry into the ALS, we find a few interesting facts. First, the main channel by
which these enrollees learned about the programs was the field visit by ALS implementers. The second
most common channel was reference from family members, friends, and peers. Other channels, such as
25
posters, radio, TV, and newspaper, were used to reach potential learners, but were not very important in
our sample.
Motivations for participating in the programs also differ between programs. For the enrollees in the ALS
Secondary Program, the main motivation was primarily to continue schooling in the formal system (50
percent) and, second, to improve chances for employment (17 percent). For the ALS Elementary Program
enrollees, the primary motivation was to continue schooling in the formal system (44 percent) and to
continue education through ALS without returning to the formal track (22 percent). For the Basic Literacy
Program (BLP) enrollees, the key motivations were to obtain basic life skills (40 percent) and continue
education through ALS (25 percent).
The employment status of enrollees at the first enrollment in each ALS program is shown in Figure 3.6.
In all the programs, being inactive (neither in employment nor in education) is the most common status
among the enrollees. However, in the ALS secondary program, about 20 percent were working when they
were enrolled in the program for the first time.
Figure 3.6: Status at the First Enrollment in an ALS Program (Enrollees Only)
100%
16 11
90% 24 NA
7
80% 5 5
4 8 Others, specify
70% 6
60%
Studying in a formal school / home
50% 58 school
40% 57
Staying at home / helping around
59
30% the house / working for the family
20% Working in a company / working
for an employer
10% 15 19
0% 6
BLP enrollees ALS Elementary ALS Secondary
enrollees enrollees
Note: ALS = Alternative Learning System; BLP = Basic Literacy Program; NA = not available.
The family status of enrollees, particularly whether or not they have children, at their first enrollment in
either of the ALS programs, is shown in Figure 3.7. Of the former BLP learners, 40 percent already had
children when they enrolled in the program, which is significantly high compared with the enrollees in the
other programs. The proportion of enrollees who had children when they first enrolled is a lot lower
among those in the ALS Elementary Program and Secondary Program.
26
Figure 3.7: Family Status at the First Enrollment in an ALS Program (Enrollees Only)
100%
19 11
19
80%
60% 40 61 NA
58
40% No children
Had children
20% 40
23 28
0%
BLP enrollees ALS Elementary enrollees ALS Secondary enrollees
Employment status and family status at the time of enrollment seem to be important factors for potential
learners to decide to participate by giving up their time and income for the ALS. We will analyze these
factors, which constitute the opportunity cost of ALS enrollment, in the next section.
3.2.3.2 Completion of the ALS Program

Figure 3.8 shows the proportions of completers and non-completers in the ALS programs. Completion in
the ALS programs is basically the achievement of an individual learning agreement developed by the
learning facilitators and enrollees based on the placement test conducted at enrollment and the enrollee’s
education background prior to ALS.
The completion rate is particularly higher among the ALS secondary-level learners compared with the
other two programs’ enrollees. Incompletion is significantly higher among the BLP enrollees. The most
common reason for non-completers to discontinue learning in the ALS program was that they decided to
work. About 25 percent of the ALS secondary- and elementary-level non-completers reported this as the
reason, while only 13 percent of the BLP non-completers reported this reason. The next most common
reason for the BLP non-completers was financial difficulty. The next reason among ALS elementary- and
secondary-level non-completers was distraction by peers, bad influence, or romantic relationship.
Figure 3.8: Completion by Program (%)
100%
80% 42
51
66
60%
Finished
40% Did not finish
58
20% 49
36
0%
BLP enrollees ALS Elementary enrollees ALS Secondary enrollees
Note: ALS = Alternative Learning System; BLP = Basic Literacy Program.
27
Figure 3.9 summarizes the results of the A&E test at the ALS elementary and secondary levels, as the
proportion of test takers and passers to enrollers in each program. Approximately 30 percent of the ALS
elementary enrollees attempted this certification test at least once, and 18 percent eventually passed the
test. In contrast, 55 percent of the ALS secondary enrollees took the test and 28 percent eventually passed
it. A large share of learners did not try to take the A&E test and remained unaccredited.
Figure 3.9: Results of the A&E Test (%)
100
% of enrollees of each program
90
80
70
Took test (only once)
60
50 45 Took test (multiple times)
40 Passed (in the first attempt)
25 28
30 21
14
18 Passed (eventually)
20 10
10 5
0
ALS Elementary ALS Secondary
3.2.4 Status after the ALS Program

Regardless of the results of the ALS programs, about 15 percent of the former enrollees proceeded to
further education as the next step, of which 9 percent entered college or university, and 6 percent
undertook technical and vocation education.
Figure 3.10 presents employment status and income. The employment bar graph shows the proportion of
those who have worked at least for one month, and the income line is the average monthly income of their
most recent job if employed. There seem to be increasing labor market opportunities for enrolling in ALS,
finishing ALS, and passing the A&E test, compared with non-learners. Average monthly income
increases significantly with the level of achievement in the ALS program.
28
Figure 3.10: Work Probability and Most Recent Monthly Income (%, PHP)
100 7000
Ever worked more than 1 month (%)
90
Average monthly income (PHP)

6000
80 41
47 49 50
70 5000
60
4000
50
3000
40
30 59 2000
53 51 50
20
1000
10
0 0
Non-learner Learner A&E SL Finished A&E SL Passer
Not worked Worked Monthly income
Note: A&E = Accreditation and Equivalency; PHP = Philippine peso; SL = secondary level.
As their future plan, more of ALS enrollees (15 percent) wish to move within the Philippines or overseas
to look for work, compared with non-learners (9 percent).
3.3 WHO ENROLLS IN AND COMPLETES ALS AND PASSES THE A&E SECONDARY
TEST?
We predict enrollment, completion and A&E pass using individual characteristics including reasons for
stopping high school, such as financial difficulty, labor market opportunity, distraction by peers, and
marriage and pregnancy, as well as gender, age, years of schooling, and marital status.
Table 3.1 presents Probit estimation results (marginal effects). First, financial reason significantly predicts
enrollment, completion and A&E pass. The result make sense since their school incompletion is unlikely
to be correlated with their own ability, but mostly caused by their parents’ economic ability. Second, the
reason related to bad influences from peers also predict enrollment and completion but not A&E pass.
This is because, most likely, they were discouraged by the circumstantial factors in high school and wish
to complete high school in a different mode. However this group is less likely to pass A&E.
Third, those who stopped high school education because they got married or became pregnant are also
likely to enroll among males. The effect is opposite among females; they are not likely to come to ALS.
Females who have already had children by the time of enrollment are unlikely to enroll in ALS.
Fourth, basic characteristics, such as age, formal education experience, and migration are also impotent
predictors. Younger cohorts tend to enroll. Those who reach higher grades tend to enroll, complete and
pass A&E. Migration from birthplace (province) similarly has a positive effect on enrollment,
completion, and passing the test.
29
Table 3.1: ALS Secondary Enrollment, Completion, and A&E Pass: Probit/Marginal Effects
(1) (2) (3)
Dependent variable Enrollment Completion A&E Pass
Reason for HS dropout 1: Could not afford 0.0883* 0.0985** 0.110**

(0.0513) (0.0490) (0.0544)
Reason for HS dropout 2: Decided to work 0.0247 -0.0103 0.0590
(0.0802) (0.0992) (0.0955)
Reason for HS dropout 3: Bad influences from friends 0.127* 0.115* 0.0483
(0.0669) (0.0631) (0.0605)
Reason for HS dropout 4: Got married/ became pregnant 1.027*** 0.185 0.147
(0.203) (0.229) (0.261)
Interaction term: (stophs_marrypreg==1)*female -0.917*** -0.0263 -0.138
(0.244) (0.257) (0.281)
Female 0.0488 0.0726 0.0810
(0.0489) (0.0468) (0.0516)
Age -0.0197*** -0.0119* 0.0103
(0.00692) (0.00695) (0.00963)
Age squared 0.000125 5.70e-05 -0.000264**
(8.54e-05) (8.46e-05) (0.000131)
Years of schooling 0.0269*** 0.0511*** 0.0652***
(0.00988) (0.0114) (0.0112)
Current marital status -0.201*** -0.0650 -0.0638
(0.0520) (0.0470) (0.0493)
Came from other province 0.0981* 0.142** 0.327***
(0.0570) (0.0570) (0.0614)
Municipality dummies yes yes yes
Observations 369 460 348
Note: Standard errors are in parentheses. A&E = Accreditation and Equivalence; ALS = Alternative Learning
System; HS = high school.
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Last, we generate the predicted probabilities of ALS enrollment and completion values for individuals’
ages 10 to 60 years in increments of five years. The mean predicted probability of being enrolled in ALS
is 80 percent for those around age 20 years, and decreases to less than 50 percent after age 35. The decline
in the predicted probability is slower for completion. This result supports the finding that it may be
advisable to prioritize age groups in targeting potential learners.
3.4 SUMMARY
In this section, we characterized the ALS beneficiaries by comparing the characteristics of ALS enrollees
and non-enrollees using the ALS national monitoring and evaluation data. Through descriptive analysis,
we found clear differences in some of the key characteristics. We found that the reasons for leaving
formal education before graduation can well explain ALS enrollment and completion and passing the
A&E test. Based on our findings, we can summarize policy solutions to enhance the transformation of the
out-of-school youth and adult population to more education through ALS.
30
The results show that it is important to target specific groups who need support in enrolling in ALS.
Females who left high school for marriage or pregnancy are the least likely to be enrolled in ALS
compared with males in the same situation. These women are likely to spend a large proportion of their
time taking care of children at home and doing household chores, which increases their opportunity costs.
However, this group was small in number.
It was also found that those who could not stay in high school because of financial problems are likely to
continue education through ALS. As their dropping out of high school was not related to their ability,
they are likely to complete their learning in ALS and earn official accreditation. We also found that one of
the major reasons for leaving the ALS programs was the inability to afford the expenses of the learning
sessions, so some may face financial difficulty even in attending ALS sessions. In addition, their forgone
incomes could be an important issue, as they stopped schooling to work.
31
4 DELIVERY: CONTRACT SCHEMES
This section first reviews the distributions and basic characteristics of the facilitators delivered and
procured by the Department of Education (DepEd). Second, the section examines the relative efficiency
of the two types of facilitators by looking into learner-assignment rules applied to the two groups and
learners’ outcomes. In the current system, DepEd-delivered facilitators are required to have at least 75
learners per year, while DepEd-procured facilitators need only 50 learners. The gap in the required
number of learners is imposed by rules, so if all conditions are equal, it is a rule-imposed instrument that
is useful for looking at the effect of the number of learners on learning outcomes. However, as we discuss
below, there are some differences in the characteristics between the DepEd-delivered and DepEd-
procured facilitators, such as years of experience. After characterizing the key observations on learning
outcomes, we examine whether there remains an efficiency gap between the two types of facilitators once
controlling for the number of learners and conventional human capital factors, such as age, years of
experience, and schooling.
4.1 BACKGROUND
Table 4.1 shows the spatial the distributions of learning facilitators by regions. Although the survey
objective was to conduct a census of all learning facilitators, various empirical issues, such as uncovered
regions and divisions, absences, and spoiled questionnaires, have to be considered in understanding the
figures. Nonetheless, the table represents the best estimate of existing learning facilitators, and the
majority of facilitators are DepEd-delivered.
Table 4.1: Summary of 2014 Learning Facilitator Survey Respondents

Respondent’s DepEd- DepEd-
Total
Region delivered procured
CAR 140 56 196
CARAGA 264 86 350
NCR 236 95 331
REGION I 221 50 271
REGION II 173 76 249
REGION III 342 141 483
REGION IV-A 397 125 522
REGION IV-B 120 47 167
REGION V 235 73 308
REGION VI 266 151 417
REGION VII 348 110 458
REGION VIII 359 102 461
REGION IX 225 55 280
REGION X 280 187 467
REGION XI 208 82 290
REGION XII 256 80 336
TOTAL 4,070 1,516 5,586
% 73 27 100
Note: ARMM not included in survey due to logistical
issues
32
Table 4.2 shows the basic characteristics of the surveyed learning facilitators. First, it shows that DepEd-
procured facilitators are significantly younger than DepEd-delivered facilitators. This finding was
expected, as all DepEd-procured facilitators are not regular DepEd employees and most of them are
contracted while waiting for a chance to enter the regular government or private teaching workforce. This
age aspect has major implications for work effort and intentions, as well as the tendencies of their other
basic characteristics. Second, the gender ratio of DepEd-procured facilitators is more skewed toward
females, compared with the DepEd-delivered ones. This result is a function of the gender ratio of
graduates of teaching courses, wherein more females traditionally enter and graduate from teacher
education institutions. The more equal gender ratio among DepEd-delivered facilitators is a function of
the overall DepEd employee gender ratio. Third, half of the DepEd-procured facilitators work on a full-
time basis. These facilitators are assigned to the Accreditation and Equivalence (A&E) Elementary
Program and A&E Secondary Program, and have more concrete targets. Lastly, and mostly as a function
of age, DepEd-procured facilitators have fewer years of schooling (nonetheless 89 percent are college
graduates) and fewer years of experience teaching ALS. This finding again points to the fact that being a
contracted ALS staff represents a good stepping-stone into the regular teaching profession.
Table 4.2: Selected Basic 2014 ALS Learning Facilitator Characteristics (%)
Age D P Sex D P Appt D P Exp D P Sch D P
10-19 0.0 0.1 M 42.7 29.6 Part 12.4 51.0 0-4 40.7 76.8 0-5 0.1 0.0
20-29 12.4 40.6 F 57.3 70.5 Full 87.6 49.0 5-9 38.3 16.0 6-9 0.2 0.3
30-39 36.8 32.9 10-14 13.4 4.1 10-13 0.9 5.7
40-49 31.0 15.4 15-19 6.4 2.6 14-15 82.0 88.6
50-59 16.7 6.9 20-24 0.9 0.2 16-19 16.4 5.2
60-69 3.0 3.5 25-29 0.2 0.3 20+ 0.6 0.2
70-79 0.0 some 30-34 0.1 0.0
35-39 0.1 0.0
Legend: D – DepEd Delivered; P – DepEd Procured; Sex – Gender; M – Male; F – Female; Appt – Type of appointment; Part – Part Time; Full –
Full Time; Exp – Years of Experience teaching ALS; Sch – Years of schooling
Another important aspect of the contract scheme is its payment methods. The ALS service contract states,
among other things, that the service provider will be paid 50 percent upon contract signing and 50 percent
upon the end of the contract. Unfortunately, there is no payment condition linked to performance, either
for achievement below or above the agreed target number of learners, or for non-submission of the
required reports. And nothing is linked to learning outcomes, such as completion and passing the A&E
test. Therefore, this setting implies that (a) DepEd-procured facilitators are not properly incentivized to
exert their best efforts, and (b) as discussed in the appendix, monitoring activities by supervisors play a
potentially important role in controlling the quality of the facilitators’ work, and this similarly applies to
DepEd-delivered facilitators, given that many of them are working in environments where supervision is
not necessarily easy.
4.2 LEARNER SIZE AND LEARNING OUTCOMES

Figure 4.1 shows the number of learners by contract type. It is clear that DepEd-delivered facilitators have
a mass point at and above the required number of learners, which is 75. Although the distribution does not
show a clear mass point in the case of DepEd-procured facilitators, it is centered at the required number
of learners, which is 50. The DepEd-delivered type distribution stochastically dominates that of the
DepEd-procured type.
33
Figure 4.1 Number of Learners

.03
.02
Density
.01
0
0 50 100 150 200

Enrollers
Deped staff
Contractor
Next we compare the numbers of completers and A&E passers between DepEd-delivered and DepEd-
procured facilitators (Figures 4.2 and 4.3). Interestingly, the two distributions seem to converge,
especially in A&E passers. From these graphs, it may be conjectured that, if the median of A&E passers
is similar in the two groups, the A&E pass rate could be higher for DepEd-procured facilitators than for
DepEd-delivered facilitators, given that the number of learners is, according to the rules, higher for the
DepEd-delivered facilitators than the DepEd-procured facilitators.
34
Figure 4.2 Number of Completers

.025
.02
.015
Density
.01
.005
0 50 100 150 200

Completers
Deped staff
Contractor
Figure 4.3 Number of Passers

.08
.06
Density
.04
.02
0
0 50 100 150
Passers
Deped staff
Contractor
35
Figures 4.4 and 4.5 show completion and A&E pass rates, respectively. Through these measures, we find
that the two types of facilitators look surprisingly similar, although the actual number of learners was
different. For completion rate, DepEd-delivered facilitators perform better than DepEd-procured ones, but
they look very similar for A&E pass rate. At this stage, we do not have any strong evidence to suppose
that there is an efficiency difference between the two types of facilitators.
Figure 4.4 Completion Rate

2
1.5
Density
1
.5
0
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1
Completion Rate
Deped staff
Contractor
Figure 4.5 A&E Pass Rate
36
4
3
Density
2
1
0
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1
Passing Rate
Deped staff
Contractor
The negative effect of the number of learners (class size) on learning outcomes is often reported in the
literature. We examine the relationship between the number of learners and learning outcomes. Figures
4.6 and 4.7 show the relationships for completion and A&E pass rates, respectively. First, in both
measures, we observe a negative slope, which indicates a negative effect of number of learners on the two
outcome measures. Second, in both measures, DepEd-delivered facilitators perform slightly better than
DepEd-procured ones. This finding is true in all domains of number of learners. Third, for A&E pass rate,
the negative relationship looks very clear if the number of learners is less than 50. This threshold is
incidentally the minimum required number of learners imposed on DepEd-procured facilitators to meet.
This observation indicates that an improvement in the A&E pass rate is not substantial if the number of
learners is already quite large, that is, more than 50. The median gap in number of learners between the
two groups, 50 and 75, therefore may not imply a large gap in the A&E pass rate.
Figure 4.6 Completion Rate and Number of Learners
37
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5 Local polynomial smooth
0 20 40 60 80 100
Learners
Deped staff Contractor

kernel = epanechnikov, degree = 0, bandwidth = 5.42
Figure 4.7 A&E Pass Rate and Number of Learners
Local polynomial smooth

.5
.4
Passing Rate
.3
.2
.1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Learners

kernel = epanechnikov, degree = 0, bandwidth = 3.4
38
4.3 TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Next we investigate the distributions and roles of teaching experience in ALS using reported years of
experience. Figure 4.8 shows the distribution of years of experience. Interestingly, DepEd-procured
facilitators are less experienced than DepEd-delivered ones. In Figure 4.9, we also compare the
relationship between the number of learners and years of experience between the two groups. Strikingly,
the gap in number of learners is persistent regardless of the facilitators’ years of teaching experience in
ALS. It is also interesting that the average number of learners increases steadily as the facilitators
accumulate more experience. In this respect, more learners are assigned to more experienced facilitators
according to the rules, to equalize the outcomes if teaching experience has a positive effect on outcomes.
Figure 4.8 Years of Experience

.4
.3
Density
.2
.1
0
0 5 10 15 20
Years of experienece in ALS
Deped staff
Contractor
Figure 4.9 Years of Experience and Number of Learners
39
90
80 Local polynomial smooth
Learners
70
60
50
0 2 4 6 8 10
Years of experience in ALS

kernel = epanechnikov, degree = 0, bandwidth = .67
Finally, our descriptive analysis looks at the returns to experience. It is expected to see positive returns to
experience, since more learners are assigned to more experienced facilitators in both groups. Figure 4.10
shows the relationship between years of experience and completion rate. We observe a positive slope only
for more than three years of experience. For relatively inexperienced facilitators (less than three years),
the completion rate decreases as they become more experienced. This observation is subject to selection
bias because of endogenous decision making to stay teaching, that is, more and less experienced
facilitators have different characteristics, observed and unobserved. Our conclusion has to await
regression analysis. Figure 4.11 shows a monotonic relationship in the case of the A&E pass rate. Both
types of facilitators have positive returns to experience, but, interestingly, the slope is higher for DepEd-
procured facilitators. We do not see a significant difference between the two types for fewer than six
years of experience, but returns to experience persist only among DepEd-procured facilitators after six
years.
Figure 4.10 Years of Experience and Completion Rate
40
.68
.66
.64
.62
.6
.58
0 2 4 6 8 10
Years of experience as ALS LF

Figure 4.11 Years of Experience and A&E Pass Rate

.3
.25
Passing Rate
.2
.15
.1
0 2 4 6 8 10
Years of experience as ALS LF

41
4.4 DETERMINANTS OF LEARNING OUTCOMES
A regression analysis is performed to understand the determinants of two learning outcomes, completion
and A&E pass rates. We include as explanatory variables the number of learners (and its square term),
age, years of experience, years of schooling completed, and female and municipality dummies. In
addition to these variables, we include an indicator variable that takes the value 1 if the facilitator is
DepEd-delivered and zero if DepEd-procured. Table 5.3 reports the estimation results. Municipality
dummies are included to control for specific local factors, such as the average quality of potential learners
and public schools, economic activities, etc. In this way, the two types of facilitators are compared in a
small geographic unit (however, this does not mean the two are ex ante similar, that is, our estimates are
still subject to bias).
Column 1 in Table 4.3 shows the results for completion rate. As expected from our descriptive analysis,
the effect of the number of learners is insignificant. The only significant variable is years of experience.
In contrast, the results for the A&E pass rate are more interpretable. As indicated earlier, the effect of the
number of learners is significantly negative but diminishing (convex) as the number increases. The effect
is largest when the number of learners is small. The three variables that represent the facilitator’s human
capital are all significant. In particular, teaching experience and educational attainment have significantly
positive effects. In the light of our previous analysis, DepEd-procured facilitators, who are relatively
inexperienced, teach fewer learners. The two effects of the number of learners and experience offset each
other. Once the analysis controls for these factors, we do not find a significant difference between the
DepEd-delivered and DepEd-procured facilitators.
Table 4.3 Determinants of Learning Outcomes: Completion and A&E Pass Rates
Dependent: Completion rate A&E pass rate
Sample: Number of learners<100
DepEd delivered 0.0319 0.0175

(1.35) (1.23)
Number of learners -0.0027 -0.0054
(1.17) (2.65)
Number of learners squared 9.96e-06 0.00003
(0.54) (2.15)
Age 0.0008 0.00097
(1.06) (1.96)
Years of experience 0.0060 0.0053
(3.44) (4.07)
Years of schooling 0.0034 0.0080
(0.57) (2.06)
Female 0.0246 0.0042
(1.57) (0.51)
Municipality dummies included yes yes
R squared 0.4802 0.5502

Number of observations 2587 2620
Numbers in parentheses are absolute t values.
42
4.5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERFORMANCE AND WILLINGNESS TO CHOOSE
PERFORMANCE-BASED PAYMENTS
In the NCR-Plus survey, we included an experimental question in the learning facilitator module that
elicits a possible relationship between the past-year learning performance and willingness to choose
performance-based payments. Here a variable portion of their payments is linked to A&E pass rate.
Learning facilitators were asked to choose one of the following options: (A) Contract A: A one-year
contract with a constant/fixed amount of ₱50,000, or (B) A one year contract which guarantees the
amount of ₱25,000 regardless of your learners’ performance, but with an additional component, which is
proportional to your learners’ A&E passing rate (defined as the number of passers divided by that of
takers). That is, salary is ₱25,000 + ₱50,000 * Passing Rate. Here, it is assumed that the average passing
rate is 0.5. A similar question was also asked with the expected value of ₱75,000.
Though the sample size is small in this experiment, the following results show a significant positive
correlation between the two variables.
Table 4.4 Relationship between Performance and Willingness to Choose Performance-Based

Payments
(1) (2) (3)
VARIABLES Completion rate Take rate Pass rate
Prefer performance-based pay (50K) 0.175** 0.164** 0.0632*

(2.678) (2.790) (2.072)
Prefer performance-based pay (75K) -0.197* -0.0795 -0.0272
(2.189) (1.191) (0.826)
Female dummy, age, and division dummies are included
R-squared 0.369 0.311 0.414
The results indicate that good performers prefer performance-based payments linked to (net) A&E pass
rate, and the introduction of such an incentive system may improve their performance, at least, among
those who are relatively confident in their capability.
4.6 MONITORING ACTIVITIES20

We examine differences in the frequency of monitoring by these classifications. For example, if DepEd-
delivered facilitators, such as district ALS coordinators and MTs, are internally disciplined, there is not a
strong need to monitor them. For example, if their future promotions are linked to their performance, they
have potentially good incentives to work hard, although they are not necessarily frequently monitored.
District ALS coordinators have dual roles in ALS, teaching and monitoring, which may create a conflict
20
This sub-section is drawn upon a manuscript: Igarashi, Takiko and Futoshi Yamauchi, 2015b, Effectiveness of
Monitoring Activities in Philippine Alternative Learning System, Manuscript, World Bank.
43
of interests internally in the system. DepEd-procured facilitators do not have any internalized incentives.
It is likely that monitoring by supervisors is important for this group of facilitators.
Table 4.5: Monitoring Frequency by Position (%)
DepEd-delivered DepEd-procured
Frequency per All
month DALSC MT IM LV BPOSA Other
0 time 7.0 6.7 14.9 14.4 16.3 45.0 9.4
1-4 times 64.3 49.3 45.2 50.5 55.8 30.0 53.9
5-9 times 25.1 36.9 32.8 29.9 22.5 25.0 31.1
10-14 times 3.4 6.9 7.0 4.9 5.4 0.0 5.4
15-19 times 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: BALS ALS national survey.
Table 4.5 shows relative frequencies of monitoring by types of facilitators. In contrast to the above
conjecture, the proportion of facilitators who reported no monitoring is higher among DepEd-procured
than DepEd- delivered facilitators. The average frequency among DepEd-procured facilitators is lower
than that of MTs (district ALS coordinators cannot be a good benchmark, since they teach and monitor
others at the same time). This tendency could be explained by an uneven distribution of facilitators
assigned to different locations. That is, DepEd-procured facilitators could be assigned to more
challenging places where monitoring is also challenging to implement.
Table 4.6: Who Monitored (%)
Frequency Monitored by
per week DALSC* District supervisor Division supervisor Region supervisor National monitor
0 35.9 25.1 37.4 84.1 93.3
1 16.6 36.4 39.2 13.3 5.9
2 15.9 21.7 13.3 1.9 0.5
3 8.1 6.9 4.6 0.5 0.1
4 23.5 9.9 5.6 0.3 0.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
* excludes DALSC.
Table 4.6 shows who monitors the facilitators. District supervisors play very important roles in
monitoring. This is followed by district ALS coordinators and division supervisors. District ALS
coordinators show a mixed picture: many facilitators are very frequently monitored by them or not
monitored at all. Regional supervisors and national monitors seldom come to monitor.
The question remains as to how monitoring activities are coordinated, especially among district ALS
coordinators, district supervisors, and division supervisors. In other words, a facilitator does not have to
be monitored by multiple supervisors at the same time.
Table 4.7: Coordination of Monitoring Activities across ALS Monitors (Pearson correlation
coefficient)
District Division Region National
DALSC
supervisor supervisor supervisor monitor
44
DALSC 1
District supervisor 0.1179 1
Division supervisor 0.0729 0.3076 1
Region supervisor 0.0712 0.1824 0.3038 1
National monitor 0.036 0.1181 0.165 0.5262 1
Table 4.7 shows the extent of monitoring activity coordination between different monitors (the Pearson
correlation coefficient). The analysis omits facilitators who are not monitored by supervisors at all. If
supervisors are coordinating monitoring activities, the correlation coefficients should be negative.
Strikingly all the coefficients are positive, which implies that those who are monitored by one of these
monitors are repeatedly monitored by other monitors. The correlation coefficients are statistically
significant. However, the correlation coefficients also show that monitoring of DALSCs is much less
correlated with others, which implies that DALSCs are monitoring independently and/or without
coordination with other supervisors. Interestingly, this simple finding is also consistent with some of our
findings on the effect of monitoring on learning outcomes.
The next subsection investigates the relationship between the difficulty in reaching learning sites and
monitoring frequency, and that between monitoring and facilitators’ time inputs in different activities.
4.7 SUMMARY
This section showed several clear observations and findings on the current contractual arrangements of
the ALS service delivery. The starting point was the fact that the average number of learners is
significantly larger for DepEd-delivered than DepEd-procured facilitators regardless of their teaching
experience. This fact is dictated by the current learner assignment rules. However, we observed that the
difference converges from learners to completers and from completers to A&E passers. Despite the above
naïve observations (which clearly motivate us), the distributions of completion and A&E pass rates are in
fact similar between DepEd-delivered and DepEd-procured facilitators, and in both groups the completion
and A&E pass rates are negatively correlated with the number of learners, especially if the number of
learners is less than 40.
Another fact that attracts our attention is the difference in years of experience, that is, DepEd-procured
facilitators are less experienced than DepEd-delivered ones. Interestingly, however, returns to experience
are higher among DepEd-procured facilitators than DepEd-delivered facilitators.
Regression analysis showed that the number of learners and conventional human capital variables, such as
age, years of experience, and years of schooling, significantly explain the A&E pass rate. Once these
factors are controlled, we do not see a difference in completion and A&E pass rates between DepEd-
delivered and DepEd-procured facilitators.
Based on the nonparametric and parametric analyses, reducing the required number of learners from 75
(DepEd-delivered) to 50 (DepEd-procured) generates only a very small increase in the A&E pass rate,
because the effect of the number of learners on the A&E pass rate is negative and convex (diminishing).
An improvement in the A&E pass rate is expected only when the number of learners is reduced to
substantially less than 50.
45
5 POST-ALS LABOR MARKET OUTCOMES
5.1 LABOR MARKET CONDITIONS FOR ADOLESCENTS

As the Alternative Learning System (ALS) stands at the intersection of the school system and the labor
market, it is equally important to understand the labor market structure. Those who do not complete high
school, for example, inevitably enter the labor force to seek job opportunities. In principle, the structure of
the labor market determines two important parameters that affect student behavior, that is, returns to
schooling and opportunity costs. These are key factors that affect the behaviors of school enrollers and
labor force participants who may consider entering the ALS program.
In the Philippine labor market, returns to schooling show two unique features. First, labor market earnings
only increase at educational attainment higher than high school completion. That is, convexity is very
clear in the returns structure (Shady 2003; Yamauchi 2005). Second, in contrast to most other low- and
middle-income countries, females have traditionally been better educated than males (see, for example,
Yamauchi and Tiongco 2013). In the current context, the convex shape of the returns to schooling is
particularly important, as it implies that those who want to gain in earnings by schooling need to complete
high school and possibly some college. In other words, those who drop out of high school do not gain
significantly relative to elementary school completion.
Sakelariou (2004), Schady (2003), Lanzona (1998), and Yamauchi (2005) show estimates of returns to
schooling in the Philippines.21 These studies have different focuses while estimating returns to schooling.
For example, Sakelariou (2004) decomposes gender wage gaps and Lanzona (1998) points out the
importance of migration selectivity. For the objective of this report, Schady (2003) and Yamauchi (2005)
are highly relevant, in that both report significant convexity in the return structure.22 That is, the labor
market returns increase only at higher levels of educational attainment, for example, after high school
completion (some college). Yamauchi (2005) also shows a contrast between public and private school
education. Higher returns to private school education are in fact spurious in the sense that high-ability
students are simply screened into private schools. Whether this is a result of human capital investments or
ability screening, returns to schooling generally show convexity in the Philippines.
Figure 5.1: Returns to Schooling in the Philippines (log of daily wage in pesos)
21
On estimation issues in returns to schooling, see also Card (1999, 2001).
22
Orbeta (2002) summarizes observations on labor force participation and education in the Philippines.
46
5.5
4.5
Female
4
Male
3.5
Some Elementary Some high Hhigh Some College Post
elementary completed school school college completed graduate
completed
Source: Yamauchi and Liu (2015) originally based on Labor Force Survey, October 2009 round.
Note: Using the pooled sample, the log daily wage regression was estimated with the female indicator; educational
attainment indicators (shown in the graph, “no education” being omitted) interacted with the female indicator; and
age, age squared, and region dummies. The graph shows estimated coefficients of constant term + female effect
(zero if male) + education effects (differentiated by gender). The estimation sample consists of men and women ages
20 to 49.
Figure 5.1 displays the convexity and gender difference in the returns to schooling (measured in log
wages), based on estimation using the October 2009 round of the Philippine Labor Force Survey. Females
experience higher (marginal) returns to schooling (that is, the slope of the wage profile), especially above
high school completion. The return function is steeper for females than males, which creates a greater
incentive for females to study. Consistently, school dropouts are more prevalent among males than
females. The returns are flat up to high school completion, especially among males, although their
earnings are higher than those of females.
Figure 5.2 compares the dynamic benefits of completing high school with the opportunity cost (discussed
in section 2). Here we do not include direct costs, but only the opportunity cost, defined as the foregone
income (wages) for high school non-completers. The gain is calculated as the sum of the average earning
gaps between high school completers and non-completers discounted over different ages between 15 and
60. The figure identifies the threshold point, the age above which an attempt to complete high school does
not pay off. This happens at age 26.
Figure 5.2: Returns and Opportunity Cost of High School Completion
47
4,500
4,000
3,500
Philippine Peso (PHP)
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
-
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Average earning of HS incompleters (per month) Age
Discounted sum of benefits for A&E secondary certified (per month)
Source: Labor Force Survey 2011.

Note: Future gains are the average wage gaps, calculated at different ages, between high school non-completers and
completers. Ages in the five-year intervals shown in the graph are used with the annual discount factor of 0.96. The
opportunity cost is the average wage for high school non-completers at different ages. A&E = Accreditation and
Equivalency; PHP = Philippine peso. We assume that A&E Secondary pass rate is 20 percent.
5.2 LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION: RETURNS AND OPPORTUNITY COST

The ALS Secondary Program aims to grant high school diplomas to those who were deprived of the
opportunity to complete high school or chose not to complete it. The expected immediate goal in such a
program is to impart the knowledge and skills that are necessary to compete in today’s labor market.
More generally, the program also intends to endow such a population with the life skills required in
modern society, and encourages individuals to move forward despite their lack of a high school diploma
from the formal school system.
Because of the nature of the program in providing a second chance to school non-completers, the target
population is engaged in activities other than school education, especially working in the labor market. In
other words, the target population has opportunity costs to participate in the program. One of the major
challenges is how to invite those who are involved in other activities into the program. As section 2
clarified, the comparison between the discounted sum of future gains from completing high school with
current labor market earnings (as a high school non-completer) pinpoints the age threshold below which it
would be beneficial to join the ALS program. After the threshold, those high school non-completers
would not find it attractive to join the ALS program.
To encourage learners to join the program voluntarily, participation in ALS will need to result in
sufficiently high returns in the labor market. Is enrollment or completion of the program enough to
generate a sufficient income gain in the labor market? Is passing the Accreditation and Equivalency
(A&E) test the necessary condition for premiums in the labor market? In this section, we present some
evidence on the returns to ALS using our survey data collected near the National Capital Region (NCR),
where demand for labor is stronger and more stable than in other regions, and thus the returns to
schooling are relatively high.
48
Our estimate shows that 30 of the enrollers, who were sampled in the NCR and two provinces in Region
4A, were working at the time they decided to enroll. A large sample that covers the entire country also
shows a similar proportion of the enrollers were working right before they enrolled. To compensate for
foregone incomes while studying in the ALS program, the future labor market has to guarantee a larger
income gain after the program.
5.3 NCR PLUS: NEAR MANILA WHERE RETURNS TO SCHOOLING ARE RELATIVELY
HIGH
We estimate returns to ALS in the regions near the NCR, in Manila, since this is the area that offers a
greater number of job opportunities than any other region. In other words, we will present an upper bound
on returns to ALS.
The sample from the NCR-Plus survey comes from areas that surround Laguna Lake, which is not
nationally representative but provides a great opportunity to study the roles of ALS, especially the labor
market returns to ALS under circumstances where labor demand is relatively strong as well as easily
accessible. This is not always the case in many of the Philippine provinces. In addition, the survey served
as a pilot for the national data collection that was scheduled to come later.
Table 5.1 and Figure 5.3 show the profile of the areas covered by the NCR-Plus survey and their
locations, respectively.
Table 5.1: NCR-Plus Survey: Municipalities
DepEd Municipalities Income Urban / Rough description of
division class rural economic activity
Calamba Calamba City 1st Urban Manufacturing, tourism,
City agriculture, and services
Laguna Bay, Binan, Cabuyao, Fami, Los 1st – Urban Manufacturing,
Banos, Lumban, Mabitac, 5th and agriculture, fishery, and
Paete, Pakil, Pangil, Pila, San Pedro, Rural forestry
Santa Cruz, Siniloan, Victoria
Las Pinas Las Pinas City 1st Urban Commercial and industrial
City
Muntinlupa Muntinlupa City 1st Urban Commercial and industrial
City
Rizal Angono, Antipolo, Binangonan, 1st, 3rd Urban Manufacturing,
Cainta, Cardona, Jalajala, Pililia, & 4th and agriculture, fishery, and
Tanay Rural forestry
Santa Rosa Santa Rosa City 1st Urban Commercial and industrial
City
Taguig - Taguig City 1st Urban Commercial and industrial
Pateros
Note: NCR = National Capital Region.
Figure 5.3: Map of the NCR-Plus Survey Locations
49
Source: Authors’ calculations.
The survey covered 502 individuals (352 former ALS learners and 150 non-ALS learners without high
school diplomas) and 150 ALS implementers. It is important to note that there was no attrition among the
500 individual respondents. The survey team took all the necessary steps to track and locate all the
randomly selected individuals, although the team had difficulty in initially identifying individuals who
were listed in the literacy mappings.
Next we briefly characterize the sample. Table 5.2 shows enrollment rates by municipality. Enrollment
rates vary across municipalities and are likely correlated with ALS resources and local backwardness.
Table 5.2: Sample Locations and Enrollment: Laguna Loop

Have you been enrolled in ALS secondary?
No Yes
Municipality
N (%) N (%) Total
ANGONO 5 36 9 64 14
ANTIPOLO 13 32 28 68 41
BAY 12 38 20 63 32
BINANGONAN 2 14 12 86 14
BIÑAN 12 63 7 37 19
CABUYAO 2 17 10 83 12
50
CAINTA 4 16 21 84 25
CALAMBA 1 10 9 90 10
CARDONA 0 0 11 100 11
FAMY 18 90 2 10 20
JALAJALA 2 20 8 80 10
LAS PIÑAS 4 13 26 87 30
LOS BAÑOS 1 10 9 90 10
LUMBAN 8 89 1 11 9
MABITAC 9 90 1 10 10
MUNTINLUPA 2 7 26 93 28
PAETE 0 0 11 100 11
PAKIL 1 10 9 90 10
PANGIL 6 67 3 33 9
PILA 1 5 18 95 19
PILILLA 13 43 17 57 30
SAN PEDRO 9 47 10 53 19
SINILOAN 4 20 16 80 20
STA. CRUZ 1 10 9 90 10
STA. ROSA 8 27 22 73 30
TAGUIG 5 29 12 71 17
TANAY 0 0 10 100 10
TAYTAY 2 100 0 0 2
VICTORIA 5 25 15 75 20
Total 150 30 352 70 502
In Figure 5.4, many individuals are ages 15 to 27, although there is a wide age range. ALS secondary
school enrollers are slightly more concentrated in their 20s than potential learners.
Figure 5.4: Age Distribution of the NCR-Plus Survey Sample
51
.15
.1
Frequency
.05
0
0 20 40 60 80
Age
ALS SEC Enrollers All
Note: ALS = Alternative Learning System; NCR = National Capital Region; SEC = secondary.
5.4 WHAT INCREASES EARNINGS? ENROLLMENT, COMPLETION, PASSING THE A&E

TEST?
As a second-chance program to grant high school diploma, the ALS Secondary Program is expected to
guarantee sufficient impacts on its enrollers. However, as section 4 clarified, actual performance among
enrollers varies. A subset of enrollers complete the program (although the concept of completion itself is
ambiguous, as discussed in section 4), a subset of completers take the A&E test, and a subset of them pass
the test. Therefore, enrollment in reality does not guarantee a high school diploma after 10 months in the
program. In this setting, we are interested in the question of what levels of achievement render sufficient
returns in the labor market to catch up with counterparts in the formal school system (that is, those who
did not drop out of high school).
Our regression analysis using the sample of 500 potential learners (those who were identified as potential
beneficiaries in the literacy mapping) shows some interesting but quite intuitive results. We conducted
two types of regressions, looking into (a) the likelihood of working (Table 5.3), and (b) the amount of
earnings (Table 6.4).
A reservation follows, although the findings may seem clear. Indicators such as whether enrolled or not,
completed or not, and passing the A&E test or not are all endogenous in the sense that such an event is
not assigned to the potential learners, but is their choice or a result of their efforts. It is likely that more
able learners want to enroll and can complete and pass the A&E test, so the results of the regression
analyses are driven by so-called “ability bias.” That is, significant returns to passing the A&E test could
be an artifact that reflects that those who pass the A&E test are simply more able than the others, so they
earn more in the labor market too. However, if we take a more balanced position in looking at the above
results, it is also safe to say that our estimate is an upper bound on returns to passing the A&E test.
52
Table 5.3: Work Probability
(1) (2)
Variable Probit Probit
ALS secondary - enrolled -0.296 -0.284

(1.530) (1.459)
ALS secondary - completed -0.0168 0.0287
(0.0999) (0.168)
A&E secondary - passed 0.386* 0.370*
(1.856) (1.765)
Years of schooling -0.00716 -0.00828
(0.158) (0.180)
Age 0.0156** 0.0146**
(2.217) (2.037)
Female -0.369*** -0.209
(2.671) (1.076)
Reason financial 0.427**
(2.169)
Reason financial * female -0.447
(1.614)
Birth order -0.0480
(1.207)
No. of siblings 0.0447
(1.375)
Constant 8.782*** 8.337***
(10.98) (9.407)
Observations 425 425

Current Province FE Yes Yes
Municipality FE Yes Yes
Note: A&E = Accreditation and Equivalence; ALS = Alternative Learning System; SEC = secondary.
FE = fixed effects
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Table 5.4: Monthly Earnings

(1) (2) (3)
Variable Tobit Tobit Tobit
ALS secondary - enrolled 699.7 -430.9 -468.7

(0.467) (0.517) (0.562)
ALS secondary - completed -738.0 656.8 696.5
53
(0.520) (0.855) (0.903)
A&E secondary - passed 2,784** 2,360** 2,424**
(2.036) (2.450) (2.514)

Years of schooling 68.49 1.196 -0.495
(0.191) (0.00619) (0.00257)
Age 187.6*** 102.6*** 101.9***
(3.498) (3.618) (3.597)
Female -6,604*** -4,360*** -3,919***
(4.329) (6.539) (3.871)
Reason financial 801.7 1,161
(1.282) (1.440)
(Reason financial) * female -876.8
(0.680)
Birth order -301.1* -299.2*
(1.745) (1.739)
No. of siblings 280.7** 276.9*
(1.967) (1.940)
Constant 7,939 7,726** 7,094*
(1.487) (1.993) (1.833)

Current Province FE Yes Yes Yes
Municipality FE Yes Yes Yes
FE = fixed effects
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
54
Our findings are summarized as follows. First, enrollment and completion do not affect the likelihood of
working after the program, implying that just being enrolled in or completing the program is not sufficient
to impact the probability of working in the labor market. Second, it appears that it is important to pass the
A&E (secondary) test to have a significant impact on the probability of working. This is intuitively
appealing, since passing the test can signal to employers the equivalence of high school graduates. Third,
interestingly, the probability of employment is lower among females, but this effect does not seem to be
robust, as it disappears if we include more control variables. Instead, the financial reason for dropping out
of high school looks very important. Those who dropped out of high school purely for financial reasons
(thus, mostly external to them) have a higher tendency to be able to find a job in the labor market,
probably because they are more able than those who dropped out for academic reasons.
How about earnings? Our findings are quite similar to those for employment. That is, enrollment and
completion do not significantly change future earnings. Instead, it is necessary to pass the A&E test to
increase future earnings. Interestingly, we observe an earnings penalty among females, as reported in
Yamauchi and Tiongco (2013). The common structure of labor market returns shows up in this relatively
small sample of ALS potential learners. Females suffer from lower wages in general, so passing the A&E
test is strongly desired to catch up with and surpass male counterparts. Educational attainment is higher
among females in the Philippines, which is caused in part by the wage penalty imposed on females.
Next we compare earnings profiles (returns to schooling) between those who did not enroll in ALS and
those who passed the A&E test. Figures 5.5 and 5.6 show the relationship between employment
probability and the highest grade completed. The gap between the two lines shows returns attributed to
passing the A&E test (after being enrolled in and completing the program). The two graphs clearly show a
diverging gap between those who did not enroll and those who passed the test, as the highest level of
education attained increases. For the A&E passers, the earnings profile has a positive slope, while the
non-enrolled suffer from constancy of earnings.
Figure 5.5: Work Probability: Main Sample Only
55
1
.9
Work probability
.8
.7
.6
7 8 9 10 11 12
years of schooling completed
A&E SEC Pass Not enrolled in ALS SEC
Figure 5.6: Work Probability: Sibling Sample

1
.8
work probability
.6
.4
.2
7 8 9 10 11 12
A&E SEC Pass Not Enrolled in ALS SEC
Note: A&E = Accreditation and Equivalence; ALS = Alternative Learning System; SEC = secondary; Sibling
sample = siblings of the main respondent.
56
Earnings show a similar picture (Figures 5.7 and 5.8). The A&E passers experience an earnings profile
with a positive slope. The slope is clearly steeper among the A&E passers than the non-enrolled,
indicating higher returns to schooling among the passers.
Figure 5.7: Monthly Earnings: Main Sample Only
9.5
Ln month earnings
9
8.5
8
7 8 9 10 11 12
Figure 5.8: Monthly Earnings: Sibling Sample
57
9.5
Ln monthly earnings
9
8.5
8
7 8 9 10 11 12
Note: A&E = Accreditation and Equivalence; ALS = Alternative Learning System; SEC = secondary; Sibling
Sample = Siblings of the main respondent.
The national survey also collected basic information from a random sample of potential learners.
Although we do not display this information, it is more or less consistent with the relationships observed
near the NCR, especially in the determination of employment probabilities. On log monthly earnings, we
observe a too large divergence between A&E passers and ALS non-enrollers, which is alarming and
indicates that comparability between the two groups is highly questionable in the national survey sample.
5.5 HOW MUCH DOES INCOME INCREASE AFTER PASSING THE A&E TEST?
Our estimate attributes an increase of approximately ₱2,400 per month to passing the A&E test, that is,
₱28,800 in a year. If we use the exchange rate of ₱45 for US$1, the A&E passers gain US$640 more
annually. In today’s labor market situation in the Philippines, this amount is substantial, especially
compared with the average earnings among high school non-completers.
For comparison, a similar exercise was conducted using the 2009 October Labor Force Survey. Once
incorporating consumer price index to reflect inflation from 2009 to 2014, we have an estimate of
monthly earnings increase of ₱1,203 (₱679) for males if the highest level of schooling completed changes
from elementary school completion (some high school) to high school completion. In the case of females,
it is ₱1,959 (₱1303). Our estimate of returns to passing the A&E test is higher than these estimates.23
23
In the estimation of marginal returns to high school completion relative to elementary school completion or some
high school, we used use all those who completed different levels of schooling and use those relevant parameter
estimates to calculate earnings gains attributable to high school completion. On the other hand, the analysis of ALS
enrollers/completers/A&E passers uses those who were listed in literacy mappings, that is, potential beneficiaries
listed by BALS. Since the publicly available database such as LFS do not have information on ALS or A&E, we
cannot use the same reference group in analysis. Those who could not complete high school in LFS are comparable
to the ALS potential beneficiaries in the NCR-Plus survey but we do not have interventions or counterfactual to
58
Some of the A&E passers go to college after receiving their high school diploma from the ALS program.
Therefore, the returns include a variety of cases, ranging from working right after receiving the high
school diploma to progressing to college and having a job after college graduation.
Despite the encouraging finding that passing the A&E test generates sufficiently large returns in the labor
market, the passing rate is very low. The total passing rate is only 17 percent in the national data and 21
percent in the NCR-Plus. Given the relatively small population that participate in the ALS program,
increasing the passing rate would not cause an adverse effect in decreasing the wage rate for the passers.
5.6 SUMMARY
Our ultimate question on the effectiveness of the ALS program converges to its returns in the labor
market. Does participation in the program generate sufficient returns in the future to more than offset the
initial cost, largely opportunity costs, of joining the program? Is completion of the program enough to
have a higher income than before, or is it absolutely important to pass the A&E secondary test to earn
more? This section answered these question using individual data collected near Metropolitan Manila.
Our answers are clear. Unless program participants pass the A&E test to send a positive signal to potential
employers in the labor market, the gain is little. That is, learners need to pass the test to earn significantly
more. A contradiction here is the currently very low performance on the A&E test, that is, the total
passing rate of around 20 percent. It is important to make a collective effort to improve the passing rate,
to materialize the gains at the individual as well as institutional levels.
them. One possible way is to use matching to compare high school non-completers and completers (say, PSM) but
we think this is something a bit too far in the report. Similarly, we are aware of selectivity bias that arise from school
progression and dropout in both estimations, as we discussed in the report, and instruments for the first stage
selectivity are scant and mostly irrelevant and Heckman two-step that solely depends on non-linearity in distribution
assumptions to correct for selectivity bias is not our choice due to its inherent identification problem.
59
6 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND FUTURE AGENDA
6.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

This report assessed (a) the target populations, (b) beneficiaries, (c) delivery modes with focus on
facilitators’ contract schemes, and (d) labor market returns to the program. Our discussion started with the
recognition that despite recent and rapid improvements in the Philippine school system, individuals who
drop out of school without completing basic education (particularly high school dropouts) remain a
significant issue and there were more than five million youth who had failed to complete basic education
in elementary and high schools. In 2014, only 10 percent of potential learners were enrolled in the
program.
Many of the youth school non-completers have relatively high economic and/or sociological opportunity
costs in enrolling in the ALS program. Two third of the target population in age 16-26 are currently
employed. Unless a policy intervention is designed to reduce their opportunity costs through a scholarship
or conditional cash transfer, we can only expect a small number to enroll in the program.
To effectively target, the following finding provides a hint. The reasons why individuals stopped going to
school significantly explain enrollment in ALS, completion of the program, and eventually passing the
A&E tests. Those who left school for financial reasons are the most promising group who are likely to
enroll, complete the program, and pass the A&E test, as their school incompletion is not related to their
ability. Those who stopped school for marriage/pregnancy or behavioral reasons are the least likely to
enroll and succeed in ALS.
The study found no clear difference in work efficiency between facilitators delivered and procured by the
Department of Education (DepEd). This is a surprise to us since DepEd-procured facilitators are paid
substantially less than DepEd-delivered facilitators regardless of their efforts and performance. By
introducing performance-based payment particularly to DepEd-procured facilitators (on contract), we
may create sound work incentives that potentially boost their work efforts and improve learning
outcomes. Consistently, facilitators prefer performance-based payment if they have performed well.
Our study suggests that monitoring activities within the ALS program could be improved. First,
monitoring by different supervisors are not necessarily well coordinated. Second District ALS
Coordinators (DALSC) play dual roles in teaching learners and supervising other facilitators. This seems
to lower their performance as a learning facilitator in the field.
Labor market returns to ALS are only significant when learners pass the secondary school equivalency
(A&E) test. However, the passing rate remains very low, around 20 percent. Financial support to those
who stopped school with financial constraints and already reached higher grades looks like a promising
method to improve the A&E pass rate. Regardless of whether facilitators are DepEd-delivered or DepEd-
procured, a reduction in the number of learners below learners 40 per facilitator is also an important
instrument to improve the A&E pass rate.
6.2 FUTURE RESEARCH ISSUES

Our study points to three future research issues that deserve special attentions. First, we need a deep lens
into the question of why the A&E pass rate is so low. Empirical evidence is again scant on this
phenomenon. DepEd is advised to conduct a detailed study on this issue and come up with a remedy to
60
improve the A&E pass rate. Currently available data are not sufficient to answer this critically important
question, though a few sections in the report showed some evidence on what factors explain the observed
variations of the A&E pass.
Second, empirical evidence remains still scant on adolescent behavior in and out of school (and between
in and out), especially those who are considered to be at high risk of stopping school. This issue is
increasingly important currently as Grades 11 and 12 are newly introduced to high schools and the overall
impact of the reform is still not empirically clear. A careful longitudinal study that involves experimental
interventions is required to understand effective interventions that aim to transform students at high risk
and recent dropouts into high school completers.
Third, the recognition that a wholistic approach to school non-completers (and students at high risk) is
required to provide a socially efficient solution urges us to better understand actual incentives faced by
individuals. Addressing this issue needs a systematic analysis. Uncoordinated interventions by different
programs including ALS may worsen the incidence of school incompletion at equilibrium as they can
easily distort incentives to study (or continue studying). For instance, a unilateral expansion of the last
resort can increase the number of school incompleters by providing an easily-accessible second chance
option outside the formal school system. It seems important to return to the golden rule in the area of
human capital formation and returns. That is, an early intervention generates the largest returns. An
effective remedy has to be sought while they are in school and that is the time in which the most effective
intervention is supposed to work.
61
7 APPENDIX
7.1 EVOLUTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE LEARNING SYSTEM

Although almost all children enter elementary school in the Philippines, only about 70 percent of them
successfully complete grade 6 (BEIS 2011). Only about 60 percent have access to secondary education,
and 25 percent of secondary students still do not complete high school.24 Thus, a large proportion of
children and young adolescents do not complete basic education in the country.
To support those who could not complete school for various reasons, the Philippine Department of
Education (DepEd) has been offering a second-chance program through ALS for more than two decades.
In the ALS program, basic education non-completers and dropouts can receive certificates if they pass the
Accreditation and Equivalency (A&E) test.
In assessing a complex program such as ALS, it is important first to understand how it has evolved over
the years. The Philippine government in general and the leadership of the DepEd are not particularly
strong in system continuity. Follow-through of the major programs of the previous administration does
not always factor highly in the reform agenda of the succeeding administration. In the rare instances when
this does happen, the original program designs are tweaked and rebranded by the incumbent
administration. Occasionally, prolonged periods of uncertainty occur, and DepEd leadership changes as
often as twice a year, further exposing the department to stunted reform cycles.
DepEd’s triple goals of improved basic education governance, access, and quality are useful conceptual
instruments to analyze the growth of the ALS program, and enable us to highlight the context within
which the program operates, and not necessarily each aspect of ALS, which will be discussed in detail
later. This discussion will lead to better appreciation of the current program design, and will set the tone
for the study findings and recommendations.
7.1.1 Governance
DepEd has operated non-formal education programs under the Bureau of Non-Formal Education since
1948.25 In addition, local government units and nongovernmental organizations have been engaged in
many non-formal education programs.26 The objective was for these programs to serve those who dropped
out of the formal school system, by offering a less stringent learning environment that combines literacy
and practical education.
In 1990, the World Conference on Education for All was held in Jomtien, Thailand. That event paved the
way not just for the Education for All initiative, but also for what was later to become the ALS. In 2000,
the World Education Forum, held in Senegal, adopted the Dakar Framework for Action, which re-
affirmed international commitment to Education for All. The forum also identified six education goals,
three of which are very relevant to non-formal education (ALS):
Goal 2. Provide free and compulsory primary education for all.
Goal 3. Promote learning and life skills for young people and adults.
Goal 4. Increase adult literacy by 50 percent.
24
Expanded Basic Education Information System (SY2010–2011).
25
World Bank: Skills for the Labor Market in the Philippines.
26
62
In line with the momentum building up since the Jomtien Declaration and in anticipation of the Dakar
Declaration, the Philippines Non-Formal Education Project was launched in 1999 with the help of the
Asian Development Bank (ADB). This project helped define the key components of non-formal education
(ALS) and brought it into wider public consciousness by implementing the program and reaching around
71,000 learners within three years.
In addition, Republic Act 9155, or the Governance in Basic Education Act (Republic of the Philippines,
2001), was signed in 2001. It focused on the decentralization of the sector and school-based management.
However, the act also recognized ALS as “a parallel learning system to provide viable alternative to the
existing formal education instruction; it encompasses both the non-formal and informal sources of
knowledge and skills.” It is important to note that this is a major policy declaration and it defines the
country’s perspective on ALS. The declaration has important implications that have shaped the
implementation of the program over the past 15 years. Another important result of this law was the
renaming (reorganization) of the Bureau of Non-Formal Education into the Bureau of Alternative
Learning System (BALS) by 2004.
The latest policy change involves Republic Act 10533, or the K to 12 Law, which was signed in 2013.
The law reaffirmed that ALS was part of the basic education sector, and thus covered by the law.
However, the law did not specifically state two very important things. First, it did not repeal the notion of
ALS being a “parallel learning system,” thereby preserving this policy direction. Second, the law was also
silent on the relationship between ALS and the proposed program for senior high school, leaving for later
discussion design details, such as curriculum, staff, and budget. The current policy environment
represents a major crossroads for the program.
The last item under governance is the amount of resources provided by the national government to
implement the ALS program (Figures A7.1a and A7.1b). In 2000, non-formal education received a total
allocation of ₱57.964 million, excluding the budget allocation of the ADB-funded Non-Formal Education
(NFE) project. This allocation represented 0.07 percent of DepEd’s ₱82.692 billion budget (Figure
A7.1a).27 In real terms by adjusting with the inflation (Figure A7.1b), the allocation grew to ₱64.1 million
in 2006, ₱177.0 million in 2007, and ₱197.0 million in 2010.28 By 2015, BALS received a budget of
₱468.79 million in nominal terms, representing 0.14 percent of the DepEd’s ₱319 billion budget.29 That
is, the ALS budget increased by almost five times, but the proportion of the ALS budget in the overall
DepEd budget only doubled.
27
General Appropriations Act 2000.
28
29
General Appropriations Act 2015.
63
Figure A7.1a: ALS Operational Budget in 2001–2015 [Nominal, million pesos]
500 468.8
450
400
350 309.6 307.4 315.2
284.6 291.4
Million pesos
300
237.5 240.4 240.4
250
200
150
83.6
100 46.6 46.6 46.6 55.6
39.1
50
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Figure A7.1b: ALS Operational Budget in 2001–2015 [Real, inflation adjusted, million pesos]
250
197.06
200 177.03 173.11 171.79 175.95 173.26
165.52 158.82
150
100
64.12
37.12 43.06 42.10 40.16 44.98
50
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Source: Department of Budget and Management.
Although there has been a constant increase in the ALS budget, it has grown more slowly relative to the
total DepEd budget. Figure A7.2 compares the annual growth rates of the budgets for ALS and DepEd
overall. The overall budget has grown dramatically over the past five years; however, growth of the ALS
budget has been marginal.
64
Figure A7.2: Annual Growth Rate of Budgets for ALS and the Overall Education Sector
ALS Budget Overall Education Budget
25 21.7
19.6 19.2
20
Annual growth rate (%)
14.9
15
10
4.9 4.5
5 2.0 2.5
1.5
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
-5
-5.6
-10
Source: Department of Budget and Management.
7.1.2 Access
BALS operates Informal Education30 and Non-formal Education, which is further divided into two major
ALS programs: literacy and accreditation and equivalency (Figure A7.3). The first program, the Basic
Literacy Program (BLP), is a program designed to eradicate illiteracy among out-of-school children and
out-of-school youth and adults who cannot read and write. BLP is an intensive community-based program
designed to develop basic literacy skills for reading, writing, and numeracy. The second program is
designed to provide structured learning opportunities comparable to elementary or secondary school. It
includes the administration of the A&E test, which awards an elementary or secondary level diploma to
all test passers.
Figure A7.3: ALS Overall Program Structure
Basic Literacy Program

Alternative Learning System
Literacy
(BLP)
Non-formal Education
(NFE) Elemenetary Level
Accredidation and
Informal Education Equivalency (A&E)
(Infed) Secondary Level
30
There is a third major program called Informal Education, but it is still in the nascent stage and thus not
substantially discussed in this report.
65
The ALS programs (A&E for Elementary Level and Secondary Level programs) are offered free of
charge for anyone. Learning facilitators instruct learners, normally in groups, using self-learning modules
developed by DepEd’s BALS. Learning sessions are held at various types of locations, such as
community learning centers, school classrooms, barangay halls, churches, prisons and detention centers,
etc. Learners can choose modules according to their preparedness and are encouraged to take the A&E
test once a year. Each ALS program continues for 10 months, from January to October, but learners can
begin their learning session anytime and adjust sessions flexibly.
Figure A7.4 shows the growth of ALS enrollers and completers, as well as A&E test takers and passers.
The ADB-funded NFE project reached around 71,000 learners by 2003, 134,697 in 2005, and 470,276 in
2014. It is clear that public awareness of and demand for ALS has been gradually increasing, as reflected
in the numbers of enrollers and completers. The total number of ALS learners was about 162,600 in 15
regions31 in 2010 and has continued to grow. The number of A&E examinees has also increased, from
73,936 in 2009 to 218,628 in 2014, tripling over five years. Nearly 90 percent of all the A&E examinees
are at the secondary level (Figure A7.5). However, the A&E passing rate (using the number of enrollers
as the base) has been decreasing over time.
Figure A7.4: Enrollers, Completers, A&E Test Takers, and Passers
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
ENROLMENT COMPLETERS TAKERS PASSERS
Source: Bureau of Alternative Learning System, DepEd.
31
The data of the ALS learners of Region II and ARMM was missing.
66
Figure A7.5: Growth of ALS Accreditation and Equivalency Examinees, 2009–2014
300,000
250,000
200,000
A&E Elementary
150,000
A&E Secondary
100,000
Total
50,000
-
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
The two major programs—BLP and A&E—have various subprograms, for various target beneficiaries,
modes of delivery, and materials used to deliver learning opportunities. Table A7.1 summarizes the
modes used in the ALS programs. There are quite a few combinations, but the extent of their actual
implementation is still unclear.
Table A7.1: ALS Beneficiaries, Delivery Modes, and Materials
Based on Beneficiaries Based on Modality Based on Materials
 Illiterates  Face to face  Print materials

 Dropouts  Radio-based instruction  Digitized modules
 Indigenous people  Computer-based instruction/  Radio script
 Disabled eSkwela
 Muslims
 Independent learning
 Special interest groups
 TV episodes
(Adolescent, street
children, parents, etc)
67
To implement these programs, ALS employs a combination of DepEd-hired and DepEd-procured
personnel. Table A7.2 provides a summary of the ALS learning facilitators (LFs) in the Philippines in
2012. In total, there were around 9,200 LFs involved in implementing the ALS program in the country.
About two-thirds of them are directly employed by the DepEd, so called DepEd-delivered LFs, or
contracted with financial resources from the DepEd budget, DepEd-procured LFs; the rest, partner-funded
LFs, are hired by local governments, churches, nongovernmental organizations, or other partners.
Table A7.2: ALS Facilitators Classified by Position, 2012
Classification Position sub total

Management ALS S upervisors 263
region 44
division 219
Deped-delivered LFs District ALS Coordinators (DALS C) 2,509
full-time 2,196
part-time 313
Mobile Teachers (MT) 2,409
Deped-procured LFs Instructional Managers (IM) 872
IM 378
IM for BPOSA 494
Literacy Volunteers (LV) 917
Indigenous People Program Facilitators (IP) 51
Partner funded LFs Others 2,190
Total 9,211
Source: BALS, DepEd.
Among the LFs, there are several types of positions. First, there is the supervisory function in regional
and division education department offices, which are staffed by educational program supervisors, who are
permanent DepEd officials. Under their guidance, there are ALS implementers who reach out to potential
learners and provide non-formal education for learners on the ground. These field staff are further
grouped simply by position: district ALS coordinators (DALSCs), mobile teachers (MTs), instructional
managers (IMs)32, Literacy Volunteers (LVs), and Indigenous Program facilitators. Only the first two
positions are permanent DepEd employees. There does not seem to be a standard practice for assigning
LFs to subprograms in the ALS in the field. From what we observed, any LFs, regardless of positions, are
in charge of any ALS programs purely depending on the learning needs of the ALS learners or local
communities.
7.1.3 Quality
During the NFE project, the ALS program observed five types of “learning strands” according to the
concept of learning defined by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. The
first strand focuses on the communication skills of the learner. Usually this strand teaches and challenges
the listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills of the learner. The second strand is on numeracy and
scientific thinking; here the learner faces problem-solving and critical thinking. The third strand aims to
make the learner see his/her ability to be sustainable as an individual by the use of available resources
32
Includes IMs for the Balik Paaralan Para Sa Out-of-School Adults Program.
68
and/or simply by being productive. This strand hopes to equip the learner to earn a living through self-
employment, regular employment, or entrepreneurship, and the use of appropriate technology. The fourth
strand is the development of self and a sense of community. It is expected to improve self-development, a
sense of personal/national history and identity, cultural pride, and recognition and understanding of civil
and political rights. The last strand aims to expand the learner’s view of the world in general. At this
stage, the learner is exposed to topics on knowing, respecting, and appreciating diversity, peaceful and
nonviolent resolution of conflict, and global awareness and solidarity. The learning strands ultimately
hope to equip the learner to meet the minimum requirements of basic education by being functionally
literate.
The main materials used to deliver the curriculum are the learning modules. The program started initially
with a total of 535 learning modules. The following list shows the breakdown by program (Tables A7.3
and A7.4):
Table A7.3: ALS Learning Modules (Non-formal education)

Type No. of Language Format
Materials
Basic Literacy Learning Modules
 Basic Reader 21 Tagalog, Ilokano, Bikol, Hiligaynon, Print
 Neo-Literate 33 Cebuano, Kapmpangan, Waray, Braille
 Post Literate 14 Pangasinan, Tausug, Maguindanao,
Maranao
Accreditation and Equivalency (A&E)
Modules
 Elementary Level 154 English and Filipino Print
 Secondary Level 287
 Academic Focused Bridging 94
Module
Indigenous Peoples Learning Materials
 Basic Literacy Level 14 Region IV-B- Iraya, Hanunuo, Print
Region IX- Subanen Ctrl & Western,
11 Region XI-Bagobo, Mandaya,
 Magbukun Learning Materials CARAGA-Butuanon, Manobo Ata
Ayta, agta, Isneg, Magukun Print
eSkwela Modules (Computer-based
Instruction)
 Elementary Level 89 English and Filipino Digitized
 Secondary Level 194
Radio-Based Instruction (RBI)
 Elementary & Secondary Levels 56 Filipino Print
6 Filipino (scripts)
Produced
scripts
(CD)
Television Episodes (Knowledge Channel)
 Elementary & Secondary Levels 3 Print
(scripts)
TV
episodes
Arabic Language and Islamic Values 16 Arabic and Filipino print
Education (ALIVE)
69
Table A7.4: ALS learning modules (Informal education)
Type No. of Language Format
Materials
For Parents (modules, comics, flyers, 24 Filipino print
pamphlets, posters)
For Mothers (*syllabus based on the concept 5 Filipino print
of “Pagsasarili” or Mothercraft
For Street Children (modules, comics, flyers, 30 Filipino print
pamphlets, posters)
For Adolescent (Secondary Level) 17 Filipino print
One can imagine that there are simply too many modules to be covered in such a non-formal setting.
Therefore, the modules were consolidated and trimmed down to 283, with 80 being the “core” modules
and the rest used depending on the specific learning needs of the individual. This consolidation made the
implementation of the curriculum somewhat easier, but certain trade-offs can be expected in quality. The
loss of fidelity from reducing 535 modules down to 80 will be further explored later.
As of November 2015, DepEd is in the process of matching the ALS curriculum to the K to 12
curriculum. The covered competencies are being mapped and the curriculum gaps are being identified.
The steps in the implementation of the program significantly affect its quality. A brief schematic of the
process is shown in Figure A7.6.
70
Figure A7.6: Schematic of the ALS Operation Process
•Advocacy and Social Mobilization

•Scoping the environment, looking for
Community potential learners and resources, or a
Mapping suitable learning environment such as
schools or libraries
•Enrollment, Screening and

Individual
Orientation
Learning
•Setting learning goals
Agreement
•Using the Functional Literacy Test as an
initial measure of the learner's skills
•Learning Process
Teaching •Applying adult learning principles, active learning
strategies, the “4A’s cycle” of learning, common and
successful facilitating techniques and the life skills
approach
•Administering formative and summative assessments
•Equivalency testing, Certification

and Graduation
A&E test
•Administering the exit assessment,
which confers the relevant diploma
if passed
The last item under quality is to take a closer look at the number of learners passing of the A&E test.
Figure A7.7 shows a generally upward trend, which shows that A&E test passers are seemingly
responsive to certain shocks surrounding test administration (for example, increases in the budget,
changes in test items, and changes in test dates). However, although access figures are growing at an
encouraging rate, actual passing rates are not improving as quickly, indicating major challenges in the
program in the quality of teaching and learning.
71
Figure A7.7: Number of A&E Registrants, Examinees, and Passers, and the Passing Rate
350 50%
Thousands
45%
300
40%
250 35%
30%
200
25%
150
20%
100 15%
10%
50
5%
0 0%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Registrants Examinees Passers Passing Rate
72
7.2 DATA FOR SECTION 2
The analysis uses the following national household survey data sets, which were obtained from the
Philippines Statistics Authority: 2008 Functional Literacy, Education, and Mass Media Survey
(FLEMMS), 2013 FLEMMS, 2009 Labor Force Survey (LFS), 2011 LFS, 2013 LFS, 2010 Population
Census, and Family Income and Expenditure Survey. The analysis also uses the following administrative
databases of the Department of Education (DepEd): 2008 Basic Education Information System (BEIS),
2013 BEIS, 2008 National Achievement Test (NAT) score data, 2009 Accreditation & Equivalence
(A&E) test score data (Bureau of Alternative Learning System, BALS), 2013 A&E test score data
(BALS), 2012 Alternative Learning System (ALS) facilitator division data (BALS), and 2010 ALS Micro
Information System (BALS).
The DepEd data are organized either by school, school district, education division, province, or region.
The national household data sets, such as FLEMMS and LFS, do not provide small area information
beyond provinces because of confidentiality. In the division-level analysis of the ALS facilitator
allocation, we generated indicators computed at the division level or province level, if the division’s
values were missing, by assuming that different divisions in a province face the same average conditions.
In the individual-level analysis, we computed the incidence of school dropouts, if necessary, by
aggregating division-wise conditions or ALS conditions within a province.
The following are the definitions of the key variables used in the analysis:
Potential learner-facilitator ratio. The number of ALS potential learners younger than age 26 years
divided by the number facilitators at the province level (computed using 2013 FLEMMS and BALS
data).
Proportion of ALS facilitators per high school age population. The number of all ALS facilitators
divided by the high school age population at the division level (computed using BEIS and BALS
data).
Proportion of ALS DepEd-delivered facilitators per high school age population. The number of
DepEd-delivered facilitators (DALSCs) and mobile teachers (MTs) divided by the high school age
population at the division level (computed using BEIS and BALS data).
Proportion of ALS DepEd-procured facilitators per high school age population. The number of
DepEd-procured facilitators (instructional managers (IMs), literacy volunteers (LVs), and indigenous
people) divided by the high school age population at the division level (computed using BEIS and
BALS data).
Pupil-teacher ratio (PTR), net enrollment rate (NER), and dropout rate. Available from BEIS.
National Achievement Test. Available from the NAT score database.
A&E secondary-level pass rate. The number of learners passing the A&E test divided by the number
of the examinees (computed using BALS data).
Proportion of ALS target population. The ratio of the estimated ALS target population (younger than
age 26 years) to the population in the provinces (computed using FLEMMS data).
73
Difference in the probability of employment between high school graduates and non-completers. The
difference in the probability of being employed between those who completed high school or a higher
degree and those who did not complete high school, for those ages 16–25 at the province level
(computed using LFS data).
Difference in the wage between high school graduates and non-completers. The difference in the
actual daily earnings between those who completed high school or a higher degree and those who did
not complete high school, for those ages 16–25 at the province level (computed using LFS data).
Average employment probability. The average probability of being employed, among those ages 15–
25 at the province level (computed using LFS data).
Population density (ages 12–15). High school age population divided by the area (in square
kilometers) at the province level (calculated using BEIS and Philippine Statistics Authority data).
Urban dummy. This dummy variable takes the value 1 if for a city division or 0 if otherwise (rural)
(generated using BEIS data).
Female dummy. This dummy variable takes the value 1 if female or 0 if otherwise (male) (available in
the FLEMMS data).
Poverty dummy. This dummy variable takes the value 1 if the household is below the poverty line or 0
if otherwise (available in the 2008 FLEMMS data).
Wealth index. The wealth index classifies households into 10 percentiles according to their wealth
status. With this index, the dummy variable takes the value 1 or 0 for each value (generated using the
2013 FLEMMS data).
Secondary-level target population dummy. The dummy takes the value 1 if an individual is classified
as an ALS potential learner at the secondary level based on education attainment level, or 0 if
otherwise. The analysis in Table 8.1 uses the secondary-level ALS target population status. See
section 2 for details in defining the ALS secondary-level target population (generated using
FLEMMS data).
Proportion of people with a certain occupation at the province level. The number of those who are
engaged in a certain occupation according to the Philippine Standard Occupational Classification
(one-digit code) divided by the population ages 10–64 in the province (computed using FLEMMS
data).
Asset holding. Dummy variables constructed using FLEMMS data, to define whether the household
owns a particular asset or durable goods.
Age, age squared, and marital status. This information is available from the FLEMMS data.
Final weight-adjusted factor. This information is available from the FLEMMS data.
Region VIII in FLEMMS 2013
74
Region VIII is not included in FLEMMS 2013 because of the impact of Typhoon Yolanda, which results
in the underestimation of the target population for the entire country in 2013. With FLEMMS 2008, the
target population younger than age 26 estimated for Region VIII was 6.16 percent (Table A7.5). It is
possible that a fraction of the population in Region VIII might have moved out of the area after Yolanda.
Table A7.5: ALS Target Population (Younger Than Age 26) by Region Based on FLEMMS 2008
Region N (%)
I - Ilocos 200,639 3.6
II - Cagayan Valley 219,432 4.0
III - Central Luzon 476,191 8.6
V - Bicol 376,139 6.8
VI - Western Visayas 476,381 8.6
VII - Central Visayas 442,436 8.0
VIII - Eastern Visayas 340,295 6.2
IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 277,213 5.0
X - Northern Mindanao 337,841 6.1
XI - Davao 397,841 7.2
XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 280,961 5.1
National Capital Region 407,108 7.4
Cordillera Administrative Region 72,032 1.3
ARMM 347,391 6.3
XIII - Caraga 169,213 3.1
IVA - CALABARZON 495,137 9.0
IVB - MIMAROPA 206,240 3.7
Total 5,522,488 100
7.3 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS

This section critically assesses the performance indicators that are currently used as monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) tools for ALS implementation and performance. Since alternative, non-formal, or
informal education in the country has not been studied extensively, we do not have widely agreed on
performance measurements to use. In this section, we calculate the indicators currently used in the
system, discuss potential problems in the way in which the ALS facilitators are incentivized, and propose
some alternative measures to correct the problems. It is also important to emphasize that the current and
new indicators are not substitutable but complementary to improve our understanding of the status quo.
In essence, we propose the use of an indicator that measures the survival rate within the same cohort. For
example, the notion of completion has to be anchored on those who were enrolled, so that the completion
rate measures the proportion of enrollers who subsequently complete. Similarly, the A&E passing rate has
to be calculated on the basis of the initial enrollers or completers. Similar improvements are proposed at
different stages of learning in the ALS secondary program. In this fashion, facilitators internalize the
sense of a production process from enrollment to eventually passing the A&E test. Along with the
proposal on performance indicators, we also discuss some important conceptual issues, such as to how to
define “completion,” reflecting the very nature of ALS as a flexible, open, second-chance program.
75
7.3.1 Problems with the Current Indicator Regime
There is a tacit agreement among the ALS implementers that the program is being wrongfully assessed
using formal school concepts and indicators. Specifically, many of the implementers think that current
methods of computing traditional measures, such as enrollment, completion, test taker, and passing rates,
are inappropriate, unfair, or both. Ideally, the measures should reflect the survival rate, tracing one
particular cohort. But, as the definitions of these indicators show, they are rather a snapshot of one
particular stage in the ALS program, for example, the number of test takers divided by the number of
completers.
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑛𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑒𝑠
𝑷𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒑𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆 =
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑂𝑆𝑌𝐴
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠
𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆 =
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑛𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑒𝑠
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟𝑠
𝑻𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝑻𝒂𝒌𝒆𝒓 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆 =
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑠
𝑷𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆 =
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟𝑠
where OSYA refers to out-of-school youth and adults, which are the ALS target populations estimable
based on the latest national household survey data. The most recent rounds of FLEMMS showed that the
population size of OSYA ages 26 years and younger was 5.2 million in 2008 and 4.8 million in 2013.
Figure A7.8 shows actual calculations of the indicators (rates) using the 2008 and 2013 data.
Figure A7.8: Current ALS Performance Indicators Computed for Using the 2008 and 2013 Data
2008 2013
100%
90%
80% 74% 77%
70% 66%
60%
47%
50%
40%
30%
17% 15%
20%
10% 1% 3%
0%
Participation Completion Test-taker Pass
76
Source: Calculations using the BALS/DepEd administrative data and FLEMMS 2008 and 2013.
There are two major criticisms of the current set of performance indicators. First, the indicators do not
adhere to the concept of survival (or progression) within a cohort. What is the proportion of enrollers who
eventually take the A&E test (and, of course, completed the program)? What is the proportion of enrollers
who eventually pass the A&E test?
Second, the target population has potentially large opportunity costs in enrolling and continuing in ALS.
That is, some are willing to enroll and complete the program, but the others are not, although all of them
wish to have a certificate. As section 2 clarifies, not all OSYA who do not have a high school certificate
think it is optimal to enroll in the ALS Secondary Program, because they have to give up their current
earning opportunities to enroll. Although this conceptual question is relevant at each stage in the program,
we think this issue is particularly important when calculating the participation rate (currently the rate is
very low).
There are some important implications of using snapshot-type indicators. Implementers are motivated by
such an indicator to focus on a stage-specific input-output relationship. For example, if the test-taker rate
is measured by the ratio of takers to completers, the implementers may be tempted to focus on those who
complete the program, and thus only good performers in the program. In other words, it is necessary in
the current system to integrate different indicators to grasp a more comprehensive (and more correct)
picture. In this case, we have to combine the completion and test-taker rates.
Although ideally it is important to use “cohort-specific” measures to track the performance of one
particular cohort, the core nature of ALS makes it very challenging to capture the system’s performance
only from such revised concepts. That is, since the ALS program is essentially a second-chance (and
highly flexible) educational program in contract to the formal school system, it does not compel learners
to finish the entire cycle at one time. Some learners enroll in multiple years to complete and take the A&E
test not necessarily soon after completing the program. Under the current circumstances, our measures
can be at best an approximation of the cohort-specific progression (involving errors coming from those
multiple-year enrollers).
Starting in 2015, ALS has been included in the Learner Information System (LIS) of the Department of
Education. Individual-level longitudinal data in the LIS can solve the problem of flexible multiple entries
in the program. Similar to the existing ALS practices, basic information will also be collected on all ALS
beneficiaries. The data will be entered directly into the existing information system with necessary
support structures. There is a higher probability that more complete information will be submitted to the
central office. By finally being part of DepEd’s main information system, the ALS data can also benefit
from data quality protocols being developed for the LIS and the Expanded Basic Education Information
System.
In general, however, the challenge of accurately and fairly measuring ALS performance is exacerbated by
the questionable quality of the data currently being used to compute these indicators. The accuracy of the
ALS performance measurements is always questioned if the following issues are not seriously addressed:
(a) weak incentives in proper data management, (b) inefficient data submission channels, and (c)
ineffective database management practices.
7.3.2 New Performance Indicators

This subsection discusses modifications that can be made in the current indicators to reflect cohort
tractability and actual target populations. Four indicators are considered: (a) participation rate, (b)
completion rate, (c) test-taker rate, and (d) passing rate.
77
7.3.2.1 Participation Rate
Currently, this indicator is computed by assuming that all those without a high school diploma should be
reached by ALS. This is a worthy goal in the light of the Education for All 2015 initiative. However, the
goal is unrealistic, since only a subset of the above population believes that it is optimal to enroll. In
addition, the current ALS program does not have the capacity to accommodate all of this population.
Section 2 identified age 26.5 as the upper age limit, above which enrolling in ALS does not provide a
positive net discounted gain. Thus, the primary target age for ALS in this study is from the end of school
age at each cycle (12 years for primary school non-completers and 15 years for secondary school non-
completers) to age 26 years. The current official data show that ALS enrollment is concentrated in this
age group. Unless labor market returns to the ALS Secondary Program (that is, returns to high school
completion) increase substantially, it is rational to focus on this age group.
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝐿𝑆 𝑒𝑛𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑒𝑠
𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝
𝑻𝒂𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒕 𝑨𝒈𝒆 𝑷𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒑𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆 (𝑻𝑷𝑹) =
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑂𝑆𝑌𝐴
𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝
The main difference between TAPR and the current participation rate is its explicit reflection of the target
age group. The proposed modification ranged from 5.2 million people in 2008 to 4.7 million in 2013. This
will increase the size of the indicator, as the denominator is substantially smaller than the entire
population without a high school diploma. This indicator can be viewed as the ALS counterpart of the
“net enrollment rate” in the formal education system. The variables in the formula will only consist of
out-of-school youth and adults in the target age group. However, this does not mean that ALS will no
longer serve individuals outside this age range; instead, any enrollment from the 27-and-above age group
should be considered in an alternative way:
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝐿𝑆 𝑒𝑛𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑒𝑠
𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑔𝑒
𝑮𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒔 𝑻𝒂𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒕 𝑨𝒈𝒆 𝑷𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒑𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆 (𝑮𝑷𝑹) =
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑂𝑆𝑌𝐴
𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢p
GTAPR is a hybrid of the current and the proposed net estimation methods, as it counts all ALS learners
(numerator in the current system) but refines coverage as only those with a high probability of
participation (denominator of the proposed net coverage rate). Figure A7.9 shows the current indicator
and the newly proposed indicators: TAPR and GTAPR.
Figure A7.9: ALS Participation Rates in 2008 and 2013 (proposed, %)
78
2008 2013
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% 11%
10% 6%
1% 3% Not computable
0%
Current participation rate Gross participation rate Target participation rate
Source: Calculations using the BALS/DepEd administrative data and FLEMMS 2008 and 2013.
In light of the program’s targeting, it is important to disaggregate the indicators geographically. This
attempt has to be supported by geographically disaggregated small-unit estimates of population statistics,
such as the age distribution, educational attainment, and labor market participation. Section 2 displayed
the size of target population (age 26 or younger) by province, but municipality-level data are ideally
required to do fine geographical targeting (through resource reallocations across divisions and
municipalities).
7.3.2.2 Completion Rate

Next we describe completion in the context of the ALS program. The theoretical underpinnings are
exactly the same as for the completion rate computed for the formal school system.
7.3.2.2.1 What Is “Completion”? Issues in Defining Completion in ALS

There are two major issues with the current definition of this indicator. First, because of the flexibility
that ALS offers, there is no reliable definition of “completion.” The prescribed operational procedures
states that mapping exercises should be done in November and December of every year so that learning
sessions can begin in January the following year and end in October of that same year. This 10-month
period is deemed as the official ALS “school year,” which is exactly as long as the official formal school
year, albeit for a different set of months. The A&E test is always targeted to be conducted in November to
December, corresponding to the mapping period. In theory, this should allow appropriate lead time for
finalizing the test results and processing graduation (test passing) certificates in time for March, which is
traditionally the graduation period for public schools and the beginning of the recruiting period for post-
secondary institutions and employers.
Unfortunately, in reality, the ALS implementers do not have a complete roster of 50 (for DepEd-
contracted personnel) or 75 (for DepEd-hired employees) learners once sessions start in January. Learners
come and go within the 10-month period and the official enrollment list that reaches the central office
depends on when the data are requested and reported. They are usually reported around the second quarter
of the year, when the agency budget proposal is being finalized, or during the A&E test registration
period in the third quarter of the year, when estimates are being prepared about potential numbers of test
takers.
79
In addition, the stock as well as flow of learners are complicated by the fact that each individual has
varying degrees of learning prior to ALS. The prescribed procedure is that a learning facilitator should
assess the educational level of the learner first, then craft a detailed learning plan that is tailored to the
needs and aspirations of the learner. The program is grounded on the principle of individualized learning,
which is exactly what the target clients need.
Furthermore, not all ALS implementers adhere to this standard of recognition of prior learning. Often, it
is the documentary proof (usually the diplomas or report cards) that determines what program the learners
will undergo. Once the learners are categorized within these major groupings (Basic Learning Program,
A&E S Elementary, and A&E Secondary), the learning facilitator designs collective and individual
programs depending on his/her teaching preferences.
Considering all the complexity that the flexibility of the program provides, it is difficult to design a single
official program of activities for the 10-month period, and more difficult to standardize attendance and
course (module) requirements for all learners, all of which make it difficult to define “completion.” To
pass the A&E test, one learner who joined in January might only require a minimal number of sessions in
contrast to another learner who joined in September and needs almost daily supervision. Moreover,
defining completion by attendance will contradict the main principle of the program.
The second issue with the current definition of completion rate is a recurring theme in this section, that is,
not everyone who enrolls in ALS sets out to complete the program. Granted, 78 percent of learners (2014
ALS M&E national survey) stated that they enrolled in ALS to acquire a diploma (this implies that they
intend to learn as much as they can to be able to increase their chances of passing the A&E test).
Nonetheless, the remaining 22 percent originally did not intend to finish the 10-month course, because of
various considerations, and it might be difficult to convince them otherwise. In this scenario, the current
computation method almost ensures that the resulting indicator is understated. This might be construed as
unfair for ALS implementers, especially if it has implications on certain incentive packages.
7.3.2.2.2 Proposed Approach to Address Issues with ALS Completion

Considering all of these issues, any attempt to refine this indicator first needs to define “completion”
specifically in the ALS context. A possible solution requires redesigning the two major program aspects:
the Individual Learning Agreement (ILA) and its program timeframe.
The ILA is the learning plan that is mutually agreed by the learning facilitator and the learner, based on
the initial educational assessment by the facilitator and the stated objectives of the learner. It is actually a
formal tool that has a prescribed set of procedures and documentation and it serves a very important
purpose in ALS implementation. However, the 2014 ALS national survey data show that while over 90
percent of facilitators conducted the placement test (Functional Literacy Test) at enrollment and
developed the ILA, slightly more than 25 percent actively use the ILA in monitoring the learners’
progress, and 32 percent conduct a post-test, and over 60 percent do not even bother to check the
individual’s portfolio to evaluate achievement (2014 ALS national survey).
The proposal is to redefine the ILA as the ALS Report Card (ARC), which can serve as the interim
performance record of the individual. Initially, the idea is that the ARC can contain the following:
(A) Unique ID assigned to an individual learner in the LIS
(B) List of competencies and modules the learner already knows coming into the program, based on
initial assessment or recognition of prior learning (RPL)
(C) List of competencies and modules the learner has completed, with a corresponding “grade” or
proficiency level or “pass-fail” assessment
80
(D) List of competencies and modules the learner still needs to take, based on progress in relation to
the agreed learning plan and advice of the learning facilitator
(E) List of competencies and modules the learner does not have to take, as defined by his or her
stated goals.
This proposal assumes that the ALS curriculum is fully aligned with the K-12 curriculum and that the
learning modules have been updated accordingly. The proposal also assumes that the Functional Literacy
Test and all other assessment tools have been improved to provide accurate initial measurement of
competencies. Lastly, it requires that only learners who have successfully passed all the core or required
modules, either through RPL or completion, will be allowed to register for the A&E test (with a duly
accomplished ARC as a documentary requirement for test registration). If the learner does not intend to
take the test, a certified ARC can still be used as proof of participation in ALS and as proof of possessing
the competencies successfully passed through either RPL or completion.
The second change required to solve the definition of completion has to do with the multi-year enrollment
framework. As a second-chance education program, ALS is very attractive, because an individual might
be able to gain a diploma within 10 months or less, provided that he/she is able to pass the A&E test.
However, learners vary in prior learning and cognitive potential. With the proposed changes to the ILA,
the multi-year enrollment framework for ALS can be formalized as a quality assurance strategy.
Specifically, ALS participation should now be viewed as an ongoing educational program that prioritizes
mastery of competencies no matter how long it takes, with periodic assessments (not just yearly) to
ascertain who are qualified to receive the relevant certification (elementary or high school diploma). The
credible assessment and work plan provided in the ARC provide a binding framework that emphasizes
advanced planning, patience, and hard work even across calendar years.
First, there is an incentive for learners to enroll early in the program, attend as many sessions as possible,
and study during their free time so that there is a higher probability of learning all the necessary
competencies/modules to pass the test. Second, there is an official guide for learners to determine how
much effort they need to invest if they want to complete the program and/or qualify for the test as soon as
possible. Third, there will be a formal process for facilitators to determine who can and should register for
the test, instead of the arbitrary practice currently pervading field implementation. Fourth, if a learner is
not immediately eligible to take the upcoming test, the next test is no longer one year away and waiting
will not discourage continued participation, but instead provide an incentive to intensify efforts to meet a
fast-approaching opportunity to acquire a diploma. Not yet qualifying for the test will not reduce morale
(at least, not as much as it already does), because the ARC can still be used as a proof of efforts for
potential employers.
This proposal requires a new way to look at enrollment statistics, specifically the tracking of “continuing”
learners from one year to the next and the accompanying change in mindset to remove the negative
connotation and pressure on ALS implementers to pass everybody as soon as possible and prioritize
review sessions. The proposal also aims to provide a sense of structure and fairness to the current practice
of screening to determine who is allowed to take the test, by having accurate performance assessments
and reducing the stigma of not qualifying immediately for the test. Lastly, holding the A&E test only once
a year makes it seem like a high-stakes test. Twice a year or quarterly tests should be explored, with the
conditions that only regional offices be used as venues for the majority of the test dates and that many
parallel versions of the test are available to avoid item leakages and rote memorization of answers from
expected questions.
81
Considering all of these aspects, the proposed definition of completion is “the state of successfully
passing all the required sessions/modules specified in the learner’s ALS Report Card.” Framing it this
way provides the following advantages. First, it provides a clear structure on the process of joining,
staying in, and finishing the ALS program while maintaining flexibility for each individual circumstance.
Second, it makes the ILA central to learner progress, facilitator performance, and even external
supervision and program management, therefore improving the behavior surrounding the development
and use of ARCs. Third, it aligns the incentives of learners and facilitators to have much of prior learning
accredited and implement a more learner-centric approach to the teaching-learning process.
However, it is possible that ALS stakeholders still shortcut the proposed new process. Some possibilities
include learners and implementers trying to accredit more skills than is actually possessed to lessen the
number of sessions and modules required for completion; agreeing on shorter, less demanding learning
objectives33 to increase completion; or total disregard of the new process and still focusing on review
sessions. The proposal is often self-regulating and has to be supported by additional safeguards.
For example, shorter and less demanding learning objectives are fine, but if the frequency of this practice
increases, an investigation becomes warranted. The average percentage of learners who enroll in ALS to
acquire a diploma is 78 percent (2014 ALS M&E national survey). If the reported figures are more than
one standard deviation lower than this (for example, less than 55 percent), the implementer should justify
why this is the case. The new process is also self-regulating in the sense that less-demanding learning
objectives will not qualify the learner to take the A&E test, so the majority of learners will not be likely to
accept an irrelevant and useless ARC. Lastly, for this and other negative behavior caused by the new
definition of completion, more structured supervision and investigation will be aided by the existence (or
absence) of ARCs for each learner.
7.3.2.2.3 Proposed Indicators

Given the proposed definition of completion, two contextualized statistics are also proposed. The change
in names is deliberate, so that these can be distinguishable from formal school concepts. A quick scan of
the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) Glossary of Education Statistics34 reveals that there is no official
indicator labeled as “accomplishment rate”.
𝑨𝒄𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆 (𝑨𝑹) =
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝐿𝑆 𝑒𝑛𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑒𝑠
The accomplishment rate (AR) measures how many of the enrollees go on to complete the program. Like
the original equation, a value near 100 percent is desirable, as it would mean the learning facilitator is
able to convince most of the learners to aim higher and try to acquire a diploma. The next modification
considers that not everybody who enrolled in ALS actually set out to finish the program. The study found
that only 78 percent of learners enrolled (2014 ALS national survey) with the aim of acquiring a high
school diploma. If this figure is correct, an adjusted accomplishment rate can be computed to determine a
refined measure of performance.
33
Learning objectives are defined as specification of learning outcomes to be achieved upon completion of an
educational or learning activity. These encompass improving knowledge, skills and competencies within any
personal, civic, social or employment related context. Learning objectives are typically linked to the purpose of
preparing for more advanced studies and/or for an occupation or trade or class of occupations or trades.
34
UNESCO Institute of Statistics Glossary of Education Statistics, http://www.uis.unesco.org/Pages/Glossary.aspx,
September 10, 2015
82
𝑨𝒅𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝑨𝒄𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆 (𝑨𝑨𝑹) =
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑛𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑒𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑒𝑛𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜
𝑎𝑐𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒 𝑎 ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ 𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑚𝑎
Figure A7.10: Current and Proposed ALS Completion Rates, 2014 (%)
100%
90%
80% 75%
70%
62%
59%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Current completion rate Accomplishment rate Adjusted Accomplishment rate
Source: ALS national survey, 2014.
Figure A7.10 shows the comparison of the current and proposed indicators. The size of the divisor for the
AAR (more specifically, its numerical distance from the total number of enrollees) makes a significant
difference. It is important to identify which learners said they aim to complete the program for a
certificate.
7.3.2.3 Test-Taker Rate

Completing the required learning sessions under the program alone will not provide the most benefit to
the learners. It is clearly desired that those who complete the program will become eligible to take the
A&E test. The current way of computing this indicator does not consider the preferences of the students.
The ALS A&E test is the culminating activity of participating in the program, and the gateway to
acquiring a diploma. As such, many learners would opt to take the test if circumstances allowed.
The major criticism of this statistic is related to the fact that not all those who complete the ALS program
intend to take the A&E test. The study found that only 63 percent of ALS completers intended to take the
test. Not only their initial intention, but also events that are external to completers can easily affect the
decision to take the test.
An important confounding factor is the phenomenon of test “walk-ins.” This represents a group of people
who did not undergo the program but nonetheless want to take the A&E test. DepEd discourages walk-ins
because it creates a moral hazard by changing the reputation of the A&E test into a shortcut to a diploma.
It also devalues the program itself, as completing it may or may not be an assurance of passing the test
anyway. Lastly, it may expose the implementer to a greater risk that he/she will not meet passing rate
targets set by the district, division, or regional offices. However, DepEd also recognizes that there are
83
many individuals who are almost ready to take and pass the test even without participating in the
program. In addition, on the day of the test, a significant number of ALS completers who registered for
the test fail to make it to the testing center and their slots and test materials are wasted. Because of these
considerations, the status quo is simply to remain silent on the phenomenon so that walk-ins are not
openly encouraged (or discouraged), but public resources are not wasted as well.
Given these considerations, two contextualized statistics are again proposed.
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐴&𝐸 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟𝑠
𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑻𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝑻𝒂𝒌𝒆𝒓 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆 (𝐓𝐓𝐑) =
TTTR measures all program completers who actually took the A&E test in relation to all who enrolled in
the program. This cumulative statistic intends to measure how effective each learning facilitator is in
retaining, teaching, and encouraging as many learners as possible to complete the program, learn as much
as they can, and be confident enough to be officially assessed through the A&E test. The TTTR has many
characteristics similar to the AR: (a) a value near 100 percent is desirable; (b) a value over 100 percent is
questionable, except if explained by significant numbers of walk-ins; and (c) it can be computed for any
and all DepEd administrative levels.
Figure A7.11: Current and Proposed Test-Taker Rate, 2014 (%)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
46%
50%
39%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Current test taker rate Total Test-taker rate
Figure A7.11 shows the comparison of the current and proposed indicators. The size of the divisor for the
ATTR (more specifically, its numerical distance from the total number of completers) makes a significant
difference in how the tendency to take the test is viewed. It will then be important to monitor the trend of
this figure, as it is expected that the continued redesign and popularity of ALS might attract more learners
who aim to completely benefit from the program, that is, to complete the program and take the A&E test
because they want to obtain a diploma. If the number of completers who still want to take the test is equal
to or almost the same as the total number of completers, the current indicator and ATTR will have very
close, if not the same, estimates.
7.3.2.4 Passing Rate

The final step in the ALS cohort analysis is to know how many passed the test. The proposal in this
section is geared toward refinement of the indicator, consistency with the rest of the proposed cohort
analysis indicators, and ALS-specific rebranding of the indicator.
84
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝑎𝑛𝑑𝐸 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑠
𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑷𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆 (𝑻𝑷𝑹) =
The total number of ALS enrollees retains the denominator of the major indicators proposed in this
section. It is an ultimate measure of the effectiveness of the program, as it compares the original
enrollment figures with those who actually benefit from ALS by finishing the program and passing the
A&E test.
Figure A7.12: Current and Proposed A&E Pass Rates, 2014 (%)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
39%
40%
30%
18% 17%
20%
10%
0%
Current pass rate Total pass rate Pass rate (A&E
administrative data)
Figure A7.12 shows the comparison of the current and proposed indicators. The main difference from the
current computation of pass rates is purely the source of data: the current figure uses the official data from
BALS, while TPR uses data from the survey. If the DepEd/BALS data collected in the ALS Micro
Information System (MIS) are also used to compute the passing rate, the result will be 18 percent, which
is very close to the TPR estimate of the study. As a comparison, we present the passing rate obtained from
the A&E test administration data, which does not distinguish between ALS enrollees and walk-ins.
7.3.3 Walk-Ins: Non-Enrollers Taking the A&E Test

A better official policy on test walk-ins is required. Specifically, walk-ins are allowed to take the test
only if they have satisfactory ratings on their ARCs. Figure A7.13 shows pass rates for ALS enrollees and
walk-ins (non-enrollees) between 2012 and 2014. The walk-ins are still less than 10 percent of total A&E
examinees, but have been increasing and performing better year by year.
Figure A7.13: A&E Test Pass and Fail Rates between ALS Enrollees and Non-Enrollees
85
Number of Passers (%) Number of Non-Passers (%)
100%
90%
80%
70% 66% 59%
68% 75% 70%
60% 81%
50%
40%
30%
20% 34% 41%
32% 25% 30%
10% 19%
0%
Enrollee Walk-ins Enrollee Walk-ins Enrollee Walk-ins
2012 2013 2014
Source: BALS/DepEd administrative data.
Framing it this way transforms walk-ins into provisional completers and creates a subsystem defined by
the following:
1. Once the test date is announced (ideally long before the test registration period), individuals not
enrolled in ALS have sufficient number of days to approach their local ALS implementer to undergo
RPL and acquire satisfactory ratings on all the required modules for taking the A&E test, as
evidenced by their official ARC.
2. If there is enough time and the learning facilitator allows, individuals may still register for the
program so that they can still learn the competencies they have not passed yet.
3. RPL and the issuance of ARCs can happen even during the day of the test, since ALS
implementers are not allowed near the testing centers anyway. After ensuring that all their registered
learners are in the examination rooms already, they no longer have official functions regarding the
test.
Point 2 is self-regulating in the sense that ALS implementers would not want an influx of individuals
asking for RPL and ARCs on the day of the test itself. Waiting that long to get the required documents
would also be a risk to aspiring walk-ins, since no extra time would be given to them if they were allowed
to take the test.
Notwithstanding points 2 and 3, priority would still be given to full-fledged ALS learners in the
assignment of slots to take the test. Walk-ins who would only be “transformed” into completers (that is,
have themselves assessed to acquire an ARC without undergoing the program) would actually only
qualify for the “waiting list” and the final decision for them to take the test would happen on the day
itself.
A possible equilibrium scenario if this policy is adopted is that ALS implementers will schedule RPL for
walk-ins before the test day. They will then have a priority list to call upon depending on the number of
test registrants who fail to show up on test day. If many walk-ins still come on the day itself, ALS
implementers will probably help each other in assessing these walk-ins and issuing ARCs, but only up to
the point that maximizes the remaining slots because of absent test registrants.
86
The best case scenario is if DepEd announces the test dates at least three to six months in advance (and
sticks to it), more individuals will be attracted to have themselves assessed and more of them will know
that they do not possess the necessary competencies to take the test. They might then be convinced to
enroll in the program to make up for this deficit, therefore reducing the possible number of test takers
without any form of ALS intervention.
As a safeguard, proper tracking of disaggregated walk-in data (number, ARC ratings, and test results)
should be conducted and negative behavior and/or outcomes should be discovered and reprimanded.
A final safeguard is to provide ALS implementers with an effective RPL tool and the related training, as
well as to ensure that the A&E test is really aligned with the K-12 curriculum so that passing the test
without mastering key competencies taught in the regular ALS program will be almost impossible.
7.4 NATIONAL MONITORING & EVALUATION DATA COLLECTION

Aside from a systematic review of the program, DepEd requested the World Bank to consider capacity
building to build a credible database of ALS operations. BALS already has Management Information
Systems (MIS) forms and a growing database of program implementations, but their usefulness was
hindered by inaccurate data and low submission rates from the field offices. As a result, the credibility of
all reports utilizing this database was always questioned. To respond to this request, and with assurance of
resource support from BALS, the World Bank decided to adopt a census-style data collection strategy, but
with many quality assurance measures.
The study is unique in the sense that it is a major evaluation of a government program jointly conducted
by the proponent and an external partner. Specifically, DepEd is involved not just in coordination and
consultation on details of the study, but more so in the conduct of all major stages of the research. At the
same time, the World Bank provided extensive analytical and practical supports. The study was also
designed to serve as an on-the-job training course on program evaluation for BALS staff.
Forms
Various M&E forms were previously developed to gather information on the implementation of ALS.
The team revised the MIS forms to enrich the information captured through the activities. Table A7.8
shows the main data collection tools for the study.
Table A7.8: ALS M&E Instruments
Form Description Respondent

Form 1: Asks details on budget allocation, Division ALS Supervisor (one form); Division
Financial execution and liquidation Accountant (another form)
Form 2: Asks details on management and Form 2a: Division ALS Supervisor
Management monitoring practices Form 2b: District ALS Coordinators and
and BPOSA principals
Supervision
Form 3: ALS Asks details on the personal and All ALS implementers regardless of status
Implementer professional life of all ALS
implementers
Form 4: Asks ratings on various aspects of Form 4a: Division ALS Supervisor
Client ALS implementation Form 4b: All ALS implementers
satisfaction Form 4c: Individuals identified for Form 3, and
any stakeholders present during the field visits
87
Form 5: Asks details on the personal and 12 randomly selected individuals per Division
Individuals35 professional life of randomly who are over 16 years old and still do not have a
selected potential ALS high school diploma regardless of whether they
beneficiaries have been enrolled in ALS or not
Form 6: Lists down all randomly selected To be filled up only by Lead monitor
Tracking individuals who cannot be
interviewed, the reason for such
and their current contact details, if
possible
Inter-Regional Monitoring and Evaluation

National data collection was funded by DepEd and conducted during October to November 2014. To
maximize available resources, the national data collection coincided with the regular M&E activity of
BALS, but with the improvements listed in Table A7.9.
Table A7.9: Data Collection
Component Original design Revised design

Independent monitoring Direct exchange of Rotation of monitors36 to avoid direct
monitors between exchanges between divisions
divisions
Actual duration of monitoring 1-2 days 4-5 days
Selection of site visits Pre-identified by Randomly selected on day of visit; actual
Division office household visits to a maximum of 12
individuals
Monitoring tools BALS M&E forms Revised BALS M&E forms including plenty
of questions helpful in quantitative analysis
Relevant expenses Shouldered by Shouldered by BALS through cash advances
divisions being to monitors (meals and transportation of the
monitored (meals interviewees)
and interviewees)
Debriefing Sharing of Sharing of experiences, submission of
experiences, accomplished survey forms, liquidation of
submission of cash advances and providing suggestions for
accomplished the study
survey forms and
reports and
liquidation of cash
advances
35
Household rosters were recorded incompletely in the survey, which limits the scope of analysis using the
individual data, since the information on some key individual characteristics has to be extracted from the roster data.
For this reason, the analysis in section 5 uses data from the NCR-Plus Survey. A strong justification for using the
NCR-Plus in the estimation of labor-market returns to ALS comes from the unique feature of its sample locations,
that is, labor demand is relatively strong in the regions surrounding NCR.
36
Rotation of divisions ensured that no two divisions will simply exchange monitors; however, for efficiency,
monitors were only rotated to divisions within their geographic cluster. For example, monitors from Aurora division
can only be assigned to a division in the North Luzon cluster comprised of Regions 1-3 and CAR. There were a total
of four clusters: North Luzon, South Luzon including the NCR, Visayas, and Mindanao.
88
Protected Sites
Another important strategy employed by the study was to introduce the concept of a protected subsample
from the overall sample. That is, a half of the divisions were randomly assigned as “protected” sites and
thus needed to be provided with the following elements:
1. Assignment of “high performing” division ALS supervisors to help ensure adherence to the data
collection protocol
2. Additional staff for data collection from BALS
3. Priority in resources for back-checking activities.
These protected sites can serve as a safe sample in terms of data quality. However, the protected sites
were only known to the core team of DepEd and World Bank staff to avoid any negative effects.
Data Entry and Cleaning

After the last batch of back-checking activities, all survey forms were collected, categorized, and
organized by BALS staff in preparation for data entry. DepEd hired 30 encoders for two person-months to
encode all the information captured in the forms. The encoders were under the direct supervision of
DepEd and World Bank staff for further quality assurance. Table A7.10 summarizes the number of
observations.
Table A7.10: Overall Responses in the ALS National M&E
Form Number of
observations
Form 1: Financial 325
Form 2A: Management 264
Form 2B: Management 1,939
Form 3: ALS Implementers 5,788
Form 4A: Client Feedback 1,796
Form 4B: Client Feedback 4,779
Form 4C: Client Feedback 2,615
Form 5: Individuals 2,196
Form 6: Tracking 207
After data were entered into Excel templates jointly developed by the DepEd and World Bank team, the
workbooks were migrated into Stata format for further cleaning by World Bank staff.
Sample size and geographical coverage. The sample size is 5,586 individual facilitators, comprising
about 4,000 DepEd-delivered facilitators and 1,500 DepEd-procured facilitators. The ratio of DepEd-
delivered to DepEd-procured facilitators is roughly 7:3 across regions (Table A7.18). The overall
coverage of the survey sample is 82.3 percent based on the 2012 BALS facilitator data.
Table A7.18: ALS Facilitator Survey Sample Size by Region and Mode
DepEd- DepEd-
Respondent’s region Total
delivered procured
CAR 140 56 196
CARAGA 264 86 350
NCR 236 95 331
REGION I 221 50 271
89
REGION II 173 76 249
REGION III 342 141 483
REGION IV-A 397 125 522
REGION IV-B 120 47 167
REGION IX 225 55 280
REGION V 235 73 308
REGION VI 266 151 417
REGION VII 348 110 458
REGION VIII 359 102 461
REGION X 280 187 467
REGION XI 208 82 290
REGION XII 256 80 336
Total 4,070 1,516 5,586
(%) (73 ) (27 ) (100 )
Table A7.19 presents the geographic coverage of the survey sample. Overall, 16 regions were covered in
the sample, but no facilitators from Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) were surveyed
because of logistical challenges. At the province level, almost all the provinces, except those in ARMM,
were covered. There are 188 divisions and 1,157 municipalities and cities in the survey sample. These
locations are based on where the facilitators work, not necessarily where they live.
Table A7.19: Geographical Coverage of the ALS Facilitator Data
Overall Philippines* ALS national survey sample (%)

Region 17 16 94.1
Province 81 76 93.8
Division 218 188 86.2
Municipality/city 1,634 1,157 70.8
* Data are as of the data collection in 2014.
Major characteristics of the facilitators by DepEd-delivered and DepEd-procured type. Table A7.20
compares the basic characteristics and qualifications of DepEd-delivered and DepEd-procured facilitators
in age, gender, appointment type, years of experience as ALS facilitators, years of schooling, and
urban/remote-ness where they are assigned. First, DepEd-delivered facilitators are older than DepEd-
procured facilitators on average. Second, gender is more balanced among the former than the latter group.
Third, almost all DepEd-delivered facilitators work full-time with regular appointments, while the other
facilitator group works part-time. Fourth, DepEd-delivered facilitators have more years of experience in
delivering ALS (on average more than five years), while DepEd-delivered facilitators are less experienced
in ALS. Fifth, the level of education is high for both types of facilitators, but particularly very high among
DepEd-delivered facilitators (about 17 have a master’s degree). Lastly, there is a higher proportion of the
DepEd-delivered facilitators who are assigned to rural areas relative to the DepEd-procured facilitators.
Table A7.20: Basic Characteristics and Qualification of ALS Facilitators
DepEd-delivered DepEd-procured Total

N % N % N %
Age group
10-19 0 0.0 2 0.1 2 0.0
90
DepEd-delivered DepEd-procured Total
N % N % N %
20-29 489 12.4 586 40.6 1075 19.9
30-39 1,455 36.8 475 32.9 1930 35.8
40-49 1,225 31.0 222 15.4 1447 26.8
50-59 660 16.7 100 6.9 760 14.1
60-69 119 3.0 51 3.5 170 3.2
70-79 0 0.0 7 0.0 7 0.0
Gender
Male 1,738 42.7 448 29.6 2,186 39.1
Female 2,332 57.3 1,068 70.5 3,400 60.9
Appointment type
part-time 506 12.4 773 51.0 1,279 22.9
full-time 3,564 87.6 744 49.0 4,308 77.1
Years of ALS teaching experience
0-4 1,559 40.7 1,048 76.8 2,607 50.2
5-9 1,468 38.3 218 16.0 1,686 32.4
10-14 513 13.4 56 4.1 569 11.0
15-19 244 6.4 36 2.6 280 5.4
20-24 33 0.9 3 0.2 36 0.7
25-29 9 0.2 4 0.3 13 0.3
30-34 3 0.1 0 0.0 3 0.1
35-39 4 0.1 0 0.0 4 0.1
Years of Schooling
0-5 2 0.1 0 0.0 2 0.0
6-9 7 0.2 4 0.3 11 0.2
10-13 37 0.9 86 5.7 123 2.2
14-15 3,332 82.0 1,339 88.6 4,671 83.8
16-19 665 16.4 79 5.2 744 13.3
20- 23 0.6 3 0.2 26 0.5
Rural/urban
Rural 2,745 67.44 901 59.39 3,646 65.26
Urban 1,325 32.56 616 40.61 1,941 34.74
REFERENCES
Card, D., 1999, The Causal Effect of Education on Earnings, In Handbook of Labor Economics,
vol. 3A, ed. O. Ashenfelter and D. Card, Amsterdam: North-Holland.
---------, 2001, Estimating the Returns to Schooling: Progress in Some Persistent Econometric
Problems, Econometrica, 69: 1127–60.
Igarashi, Takiko and Futoshi Yamauchi, 2015a, The Estimation of Philippine Alternative
91
Learning System Target Population, Policy Note, World Bank.
---------, 2015b, Effectiveness of Monitoring Activities in Philippine Alternative Learning
System, Manuscript, World Bank.
Lanzona, Leonardo A., 1998, Migration, Self-selection and Earnings in Philippine Rural
Communities, Journal of Development Economics 56: 27-50.
Orbeta, Aniceto C., 2002, Education, Labor Market and Development: A Review of the Trends
and Issues in the Philippines for the Past 25 Years, Manila: Philippine Institute for Development
Studies.
Republic of the Philippines, 2001, Republic Act 9155: Governance in Basic Education Act.
Sakellariou, C. 2004. The Use of Quantile Regressions in Estimating Gender Wage Differentials:
A Case Study of the Philippines, Applied Economics, 36: 1001-1007.
Schady, Norbert, 2003, Convexity and Sheepskin Effects in the Human Capital Earnings
Function: Recent Evidence for Filipino Men, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 65:
171-196.
Yamauchi, Futoshi, 2005, Why do Schooling Returns Differ? Screening, Private Schools and
Labor Markets in the Philippines and Thailand, Economic Development and Cultural Change 53:
959-981.
Yamauchi, Futoshi and Marites Tiongco, 2013, Why Women are Progressive in Education?
Gender Disparities in Human Capital, Labor Markets, and Family Arrangement in the
Philippines, Economics of Education Review 32: 196-206.
Yamauchi, Futoshi and Yanyan Liu, 2015, Long-term Impacts of an Early-stage Education
Intervention on Transition from School to Work in the Philippines, Revised version, World
Bank, International Food Policy Research Institute, and Cornell University.
92

WB Study 2016 Alternative and Inclusive Learning - Marked

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

WB Study 2016 Alternative and Inclusive Learning - Marked

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Public Disclosure Authorized

Report No: AUS14891

Republic of the Philippines

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

May 10, 2016

Alternative Learning System (ALS) is a second-chance, informal education program operated by

Performance-based payment is expected to improve performance.7 Revealingly, the study

2.1 PHILIPPINE SCHOOL SYSTEM

Male Female Total

Source: BEIS, Department of Education.

2.2 ESTIMATION OF THE ALS TARGET POPULATION SIZE

2.2.1 How Can the ALS Target Population Be Defined?

Average earning of HS incompleters (per month) Age

Discounted sum of benefits for A&E secondary certified (per month)

Source: Labor Force Survey 2011.

2.2.3 Estimation Using Education Levels

Source: 2008 FLEMMS and 2013 FLEMMS.

2.2.4 Estimation Using Literacy Levels

Source: 2008 FLEMMS and 2013 FLEMMS.

Source: 2008 FLEMMS and 2013 FLEMMS.

2.2.5 Regional Allocation

Region Age 5-15 Age 16-26 Age 27 and above

I - Ilocos 55,703 2% 191,249 4% 911,297 5%

II - Cagayan Valley 75,438 3% 203,363 4% 791,923 4%

III - Central Luzon 197,576 9% 431,984 9% 1,883,596 10%

IVA - CALABARZON 139,194 6% 355,795 7% 1,326,675 7%

V - Bicol 202,156 9% 412,286 8% 1,540,612 8%

VI - Western Visayas 194,985 9% 396,639 8% 1,630,144 9%

VII - Central Visayas 131,897 6% 317,840 6% 1,118,170 6%

VIII - Eastern Visayas 132,177 6% 248,296 5% 765,186 4%

IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 112,554 5% 305,232 6% 888,887 5%

X - Northern Mindanao 140,732 6% 348,555 7% 969,129 5%

XI - Davao 135,853 6% 272,114 5% 860,416 5%

XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 126,489 6% 376,802 8% 1,307,984 7%

Cordillera Administrative Region 243,516 11% 300,572 6% 950,534 5%

ARMM 61,986 3% 159,155 3% 505,398 3%

XIII - Caraga 190,407 8% 456,437 9% 2,006,094 11%

IVB - MIMAROPA 97,584 4% 174,898 3% 659,600 4%

Total 2,264,161 100% 5,019,220 100% 18,403,602 100%

2.2.6 Ages 16–26: Gender Distribution by Region

Region Male Female Total

I - Ilocos 128,689 4% 62,560 3% 191,249

II - Cagayan Valley 139,550 4% 63,813 3% 203,363

III - Central Luzon 281,439 9% 150,545 8% 431,984

IVA - CALABARZON 293,378 9% 163,060 9% 456,438

V - Bicol 233,083 7% 122,712 7% 355,795

VI - Western Visayas 288,632 9% 123,654 7% 412,286

VII - Central Visayas 248,429 8% 148,210 8% 396,639

VIII - Eastern Visayas 205,752 6% 112,088 6% 317,840

IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 158,371 5% 89,926 5% 248,296

X - Northern Mindanao 190,132 6% 115,100 6% 305,232

XI - Davao 213,984 7% 134,571 7% 348,555

XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 155,324 5% 116,790 6% 272,114

National Capital Region 207,719 7% 169,084 9% 376,802

Cordillera Administrative Region 43,817 1% 24,185 1% 68,003

ARMM 162,157 5% 138,415 8% 300,572

XIII - Caraga 110,374 3% 48,781 3% 159,155

IVB - MIMAROPA 113,904 4% 60,994 3% 174,898

2.2.7 Ages 16–26: Basic Characteristics

Male Female Total

Target 3,174,733 63% 1,844,488 37% 5,019,220 100%

Table 2.6: Marital Status (2008)

Single Married Total

Reason for HS dropout 1: Could not afford 0.0883* 0.0985 0.110